Afghan civilians killed in U.S. air strike

[gabosaurus]

Once again, it is too little preparation and faulty execution. Followed by lies and cover up.
If you screw up, admit it.

http://www.gulfnews.com/world/Afghanistan/10226091.html

[Trigg]

Once again, it is too little preparation and faulty execution. Followed by lies and cover up.
If you screw up, admit it.

http://www.gulfnews.com/world/Afghanistan/10226091.html


From your article

The US military had no immediate comment about the incident.

Where exactly is the cover up?????????????????????

At least wait until they make a statement before you rip into them.

[AFbombloader]

Another version of the story.

http://www.aawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=1&id=13294


KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) - The U.S. military said airstrikes by its attack helicopters hit two vehicles carrying insurgents Friday in eastern Afghanistan. The province's governor said 22 civilians, including a woman and a child, were killed.

1st Lt. Nathan Perry, a spokesman for the U.S.-led coalition, said the airstrikes in Nuristan province hit militants who had earlier attacked a U.S. military base with mortars.

The helicopters identified the militants' firing positions, tracked them down and destroyed the vehicles that they were traveling in, he said. "These were combatants. These were people who were firing on us," Perry said. "We have no reports of noncombatant injuries." He gave no account of casualties in the vehicles. Nuristan's Gov. Tamim Nuristani said, however, that 22 civilians were killed in the airstrike in the Waygal district of Nuristan province. "This afternoon (Friday), two civilian vehicles were hit by airstrikes," Nuristani said over the phone.

(more)


Is this where the "cover up" starts? With the military saying what happened? When did we start believing a provencial governor over an Army 1st Lt.?

AF:salute:

[actsnoblemartin]

your such an america hating/blaming liberal

you make me sick

you little twirp :fu:


Once again, it is too little preparation and faulty execution. Followed by lies and cover up.
If you screw up, admit it.

http://www.gulfnews.com/world/Afghanistan/10226091.html

[actsnoblemartin]

she is another liberal American hating traitor, always putting our troops down


Another version of the story.

http://www.aawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=1&id=13294


KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) - The U.S. military said airstrikes by its attack helicopters hit two vehicles carrying insurgents Friday in eastern Afghanistan. The province's governor said 22 civilians, including a woman and a child, were killed.

1st Lt. Nathan Perry, a spokesman for the U.S.-led coalition, said the airstrikes in Nuristan province hit militants who had earlier attacked a U.S. military base with mortars.

The helicopters identified the militants' firing positions, tracked them down and destroyed the vehicles that they were traveling in, he said. "These were combatants. These were people who were firing on us," Perry said. "We have no reports of noncombatant injuries." He gave no account of casualties in the vehicles. Nuristan's Gov. Tamim Nuristani said, however, that 22 civilians were killed in the airstrike in the Waygal district of Nuristan province. "This afternoon (Friday), two civilian vehicles were hit by airstrikes," Nuristani said over the phone.

(more)


Is this where the "cover up" starts? With the military saying what happened? When did we start believing a provencial governor over an Army 1st Lt.?

AF:salute:

[PostmodernProphet]

I wonder how often 22 civilians travel together in a two vehicle convoy.......twenty men, one woman and a child?........

[Gaffer]

A taliban spokesman says civilians were killed and we're suppose to take his word for it. The vehicles would have been pick ups of light trucks. The military didn't mention how many enemy were killed in the strike, just that they killed combatants. The governor of the province is a taliban supporter and needs to be removed.

[Silver]

Gaby will believe the taliban before the US military.....

Shes one of them....shes too stupid to realize it...but shes one of the enemy...
In her own eyes she thinks she a patriot....heres to gabby..:finger3:

[actsnoblemartin]

I second that, gabby is like the crazy person who thinks she sane.

She is a stupid twat

:laugh2:


Gaby will believe the taliban before the US military.....

Shes one of them....shes too stupid to realize it...but shes one of the enemy...
In her own eyes she thinks she a patriot....heres to gabby..:finger3:

[actsnoblemartin]

youre a fucking idiot, and your avatar should say opposing our military, common sense, and blowing liberal theology

:poke:


Once again, it is too little preparation and faulty execution. Followed by lies and cover up.
If you screw up, admit it.

http://www.gulfnews.com/world/Afghanistan/10226091.html

[Noir]

Gaby will believe the taliban before the US military.....

Shes one of them....shes too stupid to realize it...but shes one of the enemy...
In her own eyes she thinks she a patriot....heres to gabby..:finger3:

Gawd, 'one of them' eh?...:poke:

[Little-Acorn]

This is what, the 23rd time gabby has been shocked, shocked to find that civilians get killed in wars?

[Noir]

This is what, the 23rd time gabby has been shocked, shocked to find that civilians get killed in wars?


Where does it say she's shocked? She's just reported the story to the site.

[mundame]

Afghanistan says U.S. air attack killed 27 civilians

Local officials in eastern Afghanistan said Sunday that a U.S. airstrike killed at least 27 civilians in a wedding party...

By ABDUL WAHEED WAFA (http://search.nwsource.com/search?sort=date&from=ST&byline=ABDUL%20WAHEED%20WAFA)
The New York Times
July 7, 2008



KABUL, Afghanistan — Local officials in eastern Afghanistan said Sunday that a U.S. airstrike killed at least 27 civilians in a wedding party, most of them women and children and including the bride. Officials of the U.S.-led coalition disputed the report; they said the airstrike killed extremists and that there was no evidence of women and children at the scene.

The attack Sunday in the Deh Bala district of Nangarhar province was the second in the past three days in which civilian deaths were reported.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai has ordered an investigation into a helicopter strike Friday in Nuristan province in which the provincial governor said 22 civilians had been killed and seven wounded.

The U.S. military has also disputed that account; it says only people who had been firing on coalition forces were hit.

The governor of Deh Bala, Hamisha Gul, said the airstrike on Sunday came while a group of women and children were walking from the bride's village, Kamalai, to the groom's home.

Gul said residents had reported finding "so far 27 bodies, including two men, and the others are all women and children." The bride was among the dead, he said.

Dr. Ajmal Pardis, director of public health in Nangarhar province, said the hospital in Jalalabad, its capital, had received five patients, three women and two men, wounded in the airstrike.

A statement from the coalition forces in Afghanistan said several extremists were killed in the airstrike, which was ordered after the forces received intelligence reports of a large gathering of combatants in Deh Bala.

"We have no reports of civilian casualties, and there were no women and children there," said Capt. Christian Patterson, a coalition spokesman.
Gul said that he had heard reports of extremists being in the area but that all of the dead were civilians.
************************************************** **


This seems clear enough: there was a procession, and from the air it looked like troops to some pilot, but it was a wedding party.

We do this a lot, mixing up people in groups with the enemy --- early in the Afgan war one of our pilots shot a bunch of Canadian soldiers on maneuvers. Well, they weren't us and they were troops: hey, fair game!!

Shooting a bunch of impoverished Afghan women and children because they were all walking on the road together -------- hey, close enough for government work, right? http://bestsmileys.com/sad/5.gif

[AFbombloader]

Afghanistan says U.S. air attack killed 27 civilians

Local officials in eastern Afghanistan said Sunday that a U.S. airstrike killed at least 27 civilians in a wedding party...

By ABDUL WAHEED WAFA (http://search.nwsource.com/search?sort=date&from=ST&byline=ABDUL%20WAHEED%20WAFA)
The New York Times
July 7, 2008



KABUL, Afghanistan — Local officials in eastern Afghanistan said Sunday that a U.S. airstrike killed at least 27 civilians in a wedding party, most of them women and children and including the bride. Officials of the U.S.-led coalition disputed the report; they said the airstrike killed extremists and that there was no evidence of women and children at the scene.

The attack Sunday in the Deh Bala district of Nangarhar province was the second in the past three days in which civilian deaths were reported.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai has ordered an investigation into a helicopter strike Friday in Nuristan province in which the provincial governor said 22 civilians had been killed and seven wounded.

The U.S. military has also disputed that account; it says only people who had been firing on coalition forces were hit.

The governor of Deh Bala, Hamisha Gul, said the airstrike on Sunday came while a group of women and children were walking from the bride's village, Kamalai, to the groom's home.

Gul said residents had reported finding "so far 27 bodies, including two men, and the others are all women and children." The bride was among the dead, he said.

Dr. Ajmal Pardis, director of public health in Nangarhar province, said the hospital in Jalalabad, its capital, had received five patients, three women and two men, wounded in the airstrike.

A statement from the coalition forces in Afghanistan said several extremists were killed in the airstrike, which was ordered after the forces received intelligence reports of a large gathering of combatants in Deh Bala.

"We have no reports of civilian casualties, and there were no women and children there," said Capt. Christian Patterson, a coalition spokesman.
Gul said that he had heard reports of extremists being in the area but that all of the dead were civilians.
************************************************** **


This seems clear enough: there was a procession, and from the air it looked like troops to some pilot, but it was a wedding party.

We do this a lot, mixing up people in groups with the enemy --- early in the Afgan war one of our pilots shot a bunch of Canadian soldiers on maneuvers. Well, they weren't us and they were troops: hey, fair game!!

Shooting a bunch of impoverished Afghan women and children because they were all walking on the road together -------- hey, close enough for government work, right? http://bestsmileys.com/sad/5.gif

If this story turns out to be true, it is tragic.

But why do we discount an American Captain so readily? How many times do we have to take the work of some Arab governor or other official? Could their stance be influenced by someone else? I will wait and see before passing judgement.

AF:salute:

[mundame]

If this story turns out to be true, it is tragic.

AF:salute:


It's another reason why plain and simple war: killing, bombing, destroying war --- quick and get it over with and win --- makes a lot more sense than hanging around for years and years pretending that there is anything "humanitarian" about a fighting occupation that loses ground constantly as the population of the country gets fed up and fights back.


There IS no such thing as "humanitarian war." That's an oxymoron.

It just ends up bombing civilians, over and over.

[Noir]

It's another reason why plain and simple war: killing, bombing, destroying war --- quick and get it over with and win --- makes a lot more sense than hanging around for years and years pretending that there is anything "humanitarian" about a fighting occupation that loses ground constantly as the population of the country gets fed up and fights back.


There IS no such thing as "humanitarian war." That's an oxymoron.

It just ends up bombing civilians, over and over.


But it was never and could never be a 'simple war' as it is not country vs. country like WW2, so you could never have had your 'plain and simple war' soloution

[mundame]

But it was never and could never be a 'simple war' as it is not country vs. country like WW2, so you could never have had your 'plain and simple war' soloution


Fine.

So when bin Laden escaped to Pakistan, that should have been the end of it.

OR -- we could (and I think should) have followed him right into Pakistan and killed him.

And gone home.

Same deal with Iraq: Saddam was pulled out of his spiderhole in December 2003. We should have had the troops out two weeks later: why not? WHAT HAVE WE GAINED?

Gained nothing, of course; lost a whole lot.

[Noir]

Fine.

So when bin Laden escaped to Pakistan, that should have been the end of it.

OR -- we could (and I think should) have followed him right into Pakistan and killed him.

And gone home.

And then when you leave the tailiban (sp?) would ahve come back after such a short campain, and instaled a new leader, just like nothing had happened atall.



Same deal with Iraq: Saddam was pulled out of his spiderhole in December 2003. We should have had the troops out two weeks later: why not? WHAT HAVE WE GAINED?

Gained nothing, of course; lost a whole lot.

So you would think its fine for the US to just pop into a country, find and extract their leader, and leave. With the country they are leaving falling into civil war. And you may not ahve gained very much, but the now free people of Iraq have gained a hell of allot...but as you have said before, all that mattered to you was low oil prices, for you are made of tghe highest moral fibre...

[mundame]

And then when you leave the tailiban (sp?) would ahve come back after such a short campain, and instaled a new leader, just like nothing had happened at all.

And I should care, WHY? Remember, Noir: it was not the Taliban that bombed New York. Indeed, there was not a single Afghan on those hijacked planes. It was a Saudi renagade, bin Laden, and the Taliban were none too comfortable with him.

It would have worked! We'd have spent weeks there, riding their horses, turning everything upside down, aggravated everyone as bad as Alexander (if no worse -- Afghans always win, as you Brits TOLD us, but we didn't listen) -- and when we left, I very very much doubt the Taliban would have had ANY appetite to imitate bin Laden.

Besides, they're a bunch of goat herders. You have to be up to at least SHEEP before you can attack New York; another thing the British know, as I recall from history -- you all were up to sheep and you did attack New York.
\




So you would think its fine for the US to just pop into a country, find and extract their leader, and leave. With the country they are leaving falling into civil war.


Civil war is their problem, not ours. I note the British weren't especially solicitous when we had our Civil War. Nor did we care much when you had yours and beheaded a king.

As for popping in, extracting a leader, and bopping out ---------------

Frankly, I have a little list.

Chavez
Raoul Castro
All the generals in Burma
Mugabe.............

But never mind. I'm sure we ALL have such lists, and it would always be better than war.




And you may not ahve gained very much, but the now free people of Iraq have gained a hell of allot...but as you have said before, all that mattered to you was low oil prices, for you are made of tghe highest moral fibre...

Oh, having their entire infrastructure destroyed; all their government destroyed; tens of thousands dead; a million and a half refugees in other countries in dire poverty and want; raw sewage floating deep throughout Baghdad; nobody willing to develop their oil and oil constantly stolen and sabotaged -----------

This is what you call Iraq GAINING? Darn.

But you are right in one point: we have gone on a high-fiber diet. Whole wheat bread, all that.

[Noir]

And I should care, WHY? Remember, Noir: it was not the Taliban that bombed New York. Indeed, there was not a single Afghan on those hijacked planes. It was a Saudi renagade, bin Laden, and the Taliban were none too comfortable with him.

You should care because your country decided to invade.


Civil war is their problem, not ours. I note the British weren't especially solicitous when we had our Civil War. Nor did we care much when you had yours and beheaded a king.

It is your problem, You caused it.
And i don't think you guys cared to much about the 3 english Civils wars and Charles I's beheading because the USA didn't exist. As far as i'm aware the US was founded in 1776, The first english civil war was 1642-1646, the second was 1648-1649 and the third was 1650-1651 (with charles being exectued in 1649)

As for popping in, extracting a leader, and bopping out ---------------



Oh, having their entire infrastructure destroyed; all their government destroyed; tens of thousands dead; a million and a half refugees in other countries in dire poverty and want; raw sewage floating deep throughout Baghdad; nobody willing to develop their oil and oil constantly stolen and sabotaged -----------

This is what you call Iraq GAINING? Darn.

But you are right in one point: we have gone on a high-fiber diet. Whole wheat bread, all that.


And being Free....that oh so cheap and often overlooked privilage.

[mundame]

You should care because your country decided to invade.

Not responsive. My point is that I want a successful invasion, not a failure like we have. Of course we invaded! They bombed New York and the Pentagon, what did you expect us to do?? Doggone.

But we should have axed bin Laden and gotten the hell out of Dodge. Those goat-herders native to the area were no danger to us. Bin Laden was, and is.



And i don't think you guys cared to much about the 3 english Civils wars and Charles I's beheading because the USA didn't exist. As far as i'm aware the US was founded in 1776... The first english civil war was 1642-1646, the second was 1648-1649 and the third was 1650-1651 (with charles being exectued in 1649)

Naaaaaaaaaah, we were there from the beginning. MY ancestors, Scottish, were in America for all your civil wars, and not thinking kind thoughts about the English, either, be sure. 1776 was just the year we got fed up with your misgovernment and bailed.



And being Free....that oh so cheap and often overlooked privilage.

Privilege, nothing: we had to fight for it. Namely, you.

[manu1959]

Once again, it is too little preparation and faulty execution. Followed by lies and cover up.
If you screw up, admit it.

http://www.gulfnews.com/world/Afghanistan/10226091.html

are criminals in civilian clothes that use women and children as human shields.......civilian?

[actsnoblemartin]

what about in 1994, when 800,000 people were killed in I believe it was 6 weeks, correct me if im wrong, or when 6 million jews were killed.

Youre saying, war to save lives of innocent people being slaughtered like sheep is not noble.

just let innocent people die, be raped, mutilated, no big deal

No offense meant, i await your answer


It's another reason why plain and simple war: killing, bombing, destroying war --- quick and get it over with and win --- makes a lot more sense than hanging around for years and years pretending that there is anything "humanitarian" about a fighting occupation that loses ground constantly as the population of the country gets fed up and fights back.


There IS no such thing as "humanitarian war." That's an oxymoron.

It just ends up bombing civilians, over and over.

[Trigg]

Not responsive. My point is that I want a successful invasion, not a failure like we have. Of course we invaded! They bombed New York and the Pentagon, what did you expect us to do?? Doggone.


.

It's not a failure and you can't just destroy a countries gov. and then run. It leads to civil war.

Iraq is actually doing pretty well right now

WASHINGTON — The Iraqi government achieved "satisfactory" progress on 15 of 18 political benchmarks, almost twice the number it had reached just a year ago, according to a White House report.

In a May 2008 report to Congress obtained by the Associated Press, the Bush administration wrote that Baghdad politicians reached several new agreements seen as critical to easing sectarian tensions.

[mundame]

It's not a failure and you can't just destroy a countries gov. and then run. It leads to civil war.




Actually, destroying a country's government and then leaving has been the norm throughout history. It's the default.

Why not? War has a purpose: to defeat the enemy and bend him forcibly to do your will. (Clausewitz)

Until Bush, war hasn't normally been used as an arm of social work!

[Trigg]

Actually, destroying a country's government and then leaving has been the norm throughout history. It's the default.

Why not? War has a purpose: to defeat the enemy and bend him forcibly to do your will. (Clausewitz)

Until Bush, war hasn't normally been used as an arm of social work!

War was, until recent history, used as a way of getting more land for the winning side. Complete and total occupation for as long as they could hold onto it.

[mundame]

what about in 1994, when 800,000 people were killed in I believe it was 6 weeks, correct me if im wrong, or when 6 million jews were killed.

Youre saying, war to save lives of innocent people being slaughtered like sheep is not noble.

just let innocent people die, be raped, mutilated, no big deal

No offense meant, i await your answer


In 1994, we did not "save" those Tutsis, and of course we could not have: the Hutu would have been finished killing them for months before we could have gotten any troops there.

And why are we the world's policemen? We had NO national interests in Rwanda, none at all. We have a lot of interest in staying OUT of that godforsaken continent, except possibly Nigeria because of the oil.

In 1939 to 1945, we could not and did not save the Jews, though we waged all-out total war. There IS an issue of what is possible, you know. The American ambassador to Turkey in 1916 saw the terrible Armenian genocide, and tried all he could to stop it, to get our country to stop it, but it was impossible ------- the Turks had managed to accomplish killing a million women and children before many people even knew about it.

I'm not saying it's no big deal when people suffer.

I'm saying we can't stop it and they are doing it not us and war makes it MUCH, MUCH WORSE. War is not a solution: war is the problem.

This whole deceitful, corrupt idea that war is somehow humanitarian social work just leads to the kind of catastrophe that has destroyed Iraq entirely instead of only defeating their army and leader for a few weeks, as would have been much better for them and for us.

There is no excuse for this sort of thinking, and it's never honest. We didn't really want to "help" them with war: we don't care about Iraqis. We wanted the bases and we wanted to develop that still-lost oil. Both national interests, but I'm not interested in hearing a pile of lies about "helping" Iraqis by bombing and shelling and shooting them.

[Gaffer]

More ignorant and uneducated assumptions from mundame as usual. with the usual sources. "They" "some people" "everybody" and let's not leave out "the Brits".

1. The taliban were in full support of bin laden and aq. They embraced them because their ideologies were the same. They gave safe haven to aq and refused to give him up. They gave material support to aq in the attacks on 9/11.

2. bin laden escaped because there weren't enough troops available to encircle him. We had to rely on local militia in the area because things had developed faster than expected. We didn't invade Afghanistan, we helped the afghans take it back from the taliban. The large influx of troops didn't take place until months later when NATO entered the conflict.

3. NATO is running the show in afghan. Any air strikes are likely to be US aircraft but not necessarily. Any move into pakistan is going to be done as a NATO operation.

4. iraq is becoming a success and you will probably be seeing a draw down of troops there by the end of the summer. saddam was caught in Dec of 03, but his minions kept fighting after he was gone. The same would happen with aq. Just cause the leader is taken out doesn't mean there's not someone waiting in the wings to step in and take his place. Not to mention all those that want revenge in his name.

5. We can't conduct war as they did years ago. Following WW2 all wars were fought for reasons other than conquest and incorporation of the land. But like WW2 they were fought against dictators and corrupt governments. But instead of carpet bombing and indiscriminate killing we now can do it surgically though even then there are innocent deaths. But far fewer than if we carpet bombed the whole place.

6. We went into afghan and iraq and established elected governments there. Such governments are more likely to remain friendly to us in the years to come. Through out our history we have never fought a war against a democratic country.

I'll let Noir and some of the other Brits tear you apart on English history.

[mundame]

War was, until recent history, used as a way of getting more land for the winning side. Complete and total occupation for as long as they could hold onto it.


Sure, that, too. Lebensraum.

[red states rule]

are criminals in civilian clothes that use women and children as human shields.......civilian?

To libs like Gabby logic is an enemy, and facts are a menace

[mundame]

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by manu1959 http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=268390#post268390)
are criminals in civilian clothes that use women and children as human shields.......civilian?

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


To libs like Gabby logic is an enemy, and facts are a menace


I thought manu's question was an interesting one.

It seems to me you have to think in military terms. What you've got here is normal: the enemy has found a new weapon/tactic (in this case VERY old, but it sure isn't like the type of war we prepared for).

What we can do is what people always have done, which is say, Oh! This new tactic/weapon is SO MEAN, so bad, evil, immoral, wrong..........and the enemy are just BADBADBAD guys for using it!!!!!!

That really works, right?

It worked great in the WWI era when peace conferences after peace conferences outlawed airplanes, balloons, poison gas..............

Oh, no, wait, it didn't work. All parties used all those things as soon as the war started.

In truth, the guerrillas who use women and children as shields, and who do not use uniforms so that they blend in with civilians, are of course using a tactic they intend to WIN with. They aren't playing by our rules because (do I really have to tell you this?) if they do, they will LOSE. Whereas, they would prefer to win. Duh.

It IS a mean, bad, evil, disgusting tactic.

But then, so was beheading, torture, poison gas, biowarfare, and all the rest. Actually, raking fields of running men with machine gun fire isn't so nice for the running men, either. War isn't nice. The enemy ALWAYS does what we don't expect and don't want and aren't prepared for. We should stop whining and learn to win against this tactic for a change.



I suggest going back to what we are actually good at, and long occupations in primitive countries, oh, how very not good at that we aren't.

But hey, if you all want to keep losing forever and ever, just keep on doing what we are doing and whine endlessly that the enemy is just MEAN.

Darn. Why it falls to me, a female peacenik, to teach basic military doctrine, I do not know. I guess it's because I've made a study of it and you all haven't.

[PostmodernProphet]

Originally Posted by manu1959
are criminals in civilian clothes that use women and children as human shields.......civilian?



anyone who does not still have a gun in his hands when he arrives at the hospital is a "civilian" in the Middle East......

[Gaffer]

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by manu1959 http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=268390#post268390)
are criminals in civilian clothes that use women and children as human shields.......civilian?

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>




I thought manu's question was an interesting one.

It seems to me you have to think in military terms. What you've got here is normal: the enemy has found a new weapon/tactic (in this case VERY old, but it sure isn't like the type of war we prepared for).

What we can do is what people always have done, which is say, Oh! This new tactic/weapon is SO MEAN, so bad, evil, immoral, wrong..........and the enemy are just BADBADBAD guys for using it!!!!!!

That really works, right?

It worked great in the WWI era when peace conferences after peace conferences outlawed airplanes, balloons, poison gas..............

Oh, no, wait, it didn't work. All parties used all those things as soon as the war started.

In truth, the guerrillas who use women and children as shields, and who do not use uniforms so that they blend in with civilians, are of course using a tactic they intend to WIN with. They aren't playing by our rules because (do I really have to tell you this?) if they do, they will LOSE. Whereas, they would prefer to win. Duh.

It IS a mean, bad, evil, disgusting tactic.

But then, so was beheading, torture, poison gas, biowarfare, and all the rest. Actually, raking fields of running men with machine gun fire isn't so nice for the running men, either. War isn't nice. The enemy ALWAYS does what we don't expect and don't want and aren't prepared for. We should stop whining and learn to win against this tactic for a change.



I suggest going back to what we are actually good at, and long occupations in primitive countries, oh, how very not good at that we aren't.

But hey, if you all want to keep losing forever and ever, just keep on doing what we are doing and whine endlessly that the enemy is just MEAN.

Darn. Why it falls to me, a female peacenik, to teach basic military doctrine, I do not know. I guess it's because I've made a study of it and you all haven't.

This was a tactic used heavily in Vietnam. The VC would hide among villagers and fire at us. There is a standard way to handle this. It's called...fire back. Take out the enemy positions. Then do what you can for the innocents caught in the cross fire.

You have read a lot of history of warfare, but you have not experienced it. And you do not truly comprehend military doctrine. It's very easy to sit there in your comfortable home and critique the military for what they do, it's another to actually live it and have the experience.

When you have actually assaulted an enemy position and when you have actually seen the atrocities perpetrated on people then you can tell me about what the military is doing wrong and discuss tactics.

Innocent civilians get killed, especially in countries where they don't care about human life, where they use those people to hide behind because they know we will hesitate to strike them, and they know the media here will play up the strike to make our forces look bad. It's done to give the enemy a hiding place and to use as propaganda when the hiding place doesn't work.

You can learn a lot from books, but it doesn't begin to compare with experience.

[mundame]

This was a tactic used heavily in Vietnam. The VC would hide among villagers and fire at us. There is a standard way to handle this. It's called...fire back. Take out the enemy positions. Then do what you can for the innocents caught in the cross fire.



I'm sure. And you lost Vietnam, too, just like we're losing in Iraq and Afghanistan.


This is a losing reply to that tactic. That's my point.

If we keep doing it, and we keep losing and losing -----

Hello!! We need to fight some DIFFERENT way.

Keeping out of that kind of war entirely so they can't win that way would be a really great start, but I suppose our entire Pentagon is too stupid to think of that: they'll just keep on doing what loses wars, again and again and again.