Good news, 3 taliban killed. Also 10 civilians including kids. I feel safer now.

[The Straight Story]

Kabul, Afghanistan (CNN) -- A NATO airstrike in eastern Afghanistan late Tuesday killed 10 civilians, including children, an Afghan government official said.

The strike succeeded in killing three Taliban commanders who were targets of the attack, said Wasifullah Wasifi, a spokesman for the governor of Kunar province. But it also claimed civilian lives, he said.

The 10 civilians killed included five women and four children, Kunar province Gov. Fazelullah Wahidi said.

The NATO-led International Security Assistance Force said it was looking into the allegations.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai has been at loggerheads with Washington over civilian casualties for years, saying the killings show a lack of respect for his country's sovereignty.

In June, ISAF Commander Gen. John Allen traveled to the site of an airstrike that killed 18 people to personally apologize.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/13/world/asia/afghanistan-air-strike/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

[SidDithers]

1. Drones again?...nt

Sid

[Robb]

5. No. nt

[whatchamacallit]

74. Callous disregard again?...nt

[SidDithers]

75. Non sequitur again?...nt

Sid

[whatchamacallit]

78. Your "contribution" to the discussion of this tragedy

is concern over whether or not it's another pesky drone thread. Nice...

[Bonobo]

95. Ho hum reaction to civilian deaths again?

There really ISN'T any limit to what you would accept is there?

You would rationalize literally anything as long as it is done by your "team".

[niyad]

2. k and r

and my question is, what proof do we have of three taliban commanders?

[The Straight Story]

3. Someone they probably waterboarded had an axe to grind with those three

And gave them the names as commanders.....

[niyad]

4. that sounds about right. I keep thinking about that guy --chulabi? who was giving all that

"intelligence" in iraq, the worthless pos.

[think]

6. All three of them were the number two man in al qaeda

Last edited Wed Feb 13, 2013, 04:24 PM - Edit history (1)

[randome]

22. I doubt NATO is waterboarding anyone. I could always be wrong, of course.

[think]

64. They quit sending prisoners to Afghan prisons

so that probably helps A LOT:

Afghan panel confirms torture of detainees

By Douglas Schorzman
THE NEW YORK TIMES
February 12, 2013

An Afghan government panel on Monday acknowledged widespread torture of detainees, after a two-week investigation of a U.N. report citing rampant abuses.

In a news conference in Kabul, the panel’s director said its inquiry had confirmed evidence that nearly half of the 284 prisoners interviewed in three provinces had been tortured during arrest or questioning. The inquiry also found that many of the detainees never had access to legal defense...

~Snip~

Although rights advocates found the panel’s finding on Monday an important first step, they expressed doubts about whether the abuses will diminish without stronger government actions. Both the departing allied military commander in Afghanistan, Gen. John R. Allen, and U.N. officials noted at the time of the report in January that they were aware of almost no cases in which Afghan officials suspected of torture had been punished or even moved.

“It is significant, because it’s the first time that the Afghan government is admitting that torture is truly a bigger problem,” said Heather Barr, the Afghan director for Human Rights Watch. “The question is will they actually do anything about it?”

Full article:
http://tech.mit.edu/V133/N3/long5.html

[Coyotl]

7. Three killed, and 30 parents and family just join,

plus hundreds of new sympathizers created, I imagine.

[libtodeath]

23. My first thought too,how many did it create.

[graham4anything]

8. and those three could have killed 10,000. So possibly 9990 saved.

Plus the 3 themselves could have killed the 10 collateral anyhow.
Bad individuals do bad things.

you never know.

imho.

and just about nobody was against going into Afghanastan.

it was Iraq that was the problem.

[Hugabear]

9. I was going to post this sarcastically, but I see you beat me to the punch

Oh wait, you weren't being sarcastic.

So you really think it's okay to kill civilians and children, as long as we get the "bad guys" who "might" go on to kill more people?

[Hissyspit]

80. We had to kill the civilians in order to save them.

Don'tja know...

It's like that cleric who was preaching AGAINST the Taliban we blew up when he was meeting with them. We had to blow him up to save him from maybe one day starting to preach FOR the Taliban.

He took a cop to protect him when he met with them, so we blew up the cop, too, just in case the Taliban might have killed the cleric and the cop.

This poster, sheesh.

[G_j]

10. Could have?

OMFG!!

[Puzzledtraveller]

11. I've seen this defense from a few here

it's disturbing and I would wager every single one was anti-war anti-drone when shrub was in office, not sure which makes it worse the attitude or the hypocrisy.

[graham4anything]

13. Most politicians were FOR Afghanastan, AGAINST Iraq. Inc. Bernie Sanders & Dennis Kucinich

I for one had not one negative comment on drones then or now.

Drones as Richard Clarke said are much more humane than ground combat.

And us not being there doesn't mean wars ends or bad people aren't still bad people.

So NO, your answer is wrong in my case at least.

And I wonder if there is anyone who commented on drones then in a negative sense.
I bet there wreen't.

Being against Iraq was not being against going after terrorists.

Biggest sleight of hand red herring ever IMHO

Because of this major misconception, I myself am going to answer everytime I see it mentioned.

Because it just isn't true.imho

[niyad]

14. a good many of us were against going into afghanistan--so please do not try that nonsense.

[graham4anything]

19. Did they think 9-11 should have been left unanswered? So it could happen again & again?

I come from NYC, I was in the WTC every day in the late 70s, early 80s
it was a real building
real building no longer there
real people died

Had it been 2 hours later, 100,000 could have died including 10,000 school kids as 100s of buses a day took kids on school trips there
Plus tourists and their kids

So it should have been left unaswered?

Please explain the day after consequences of doing nothing

and in everybody, I was talking about congress anyhow.
Even the favorites on the left liberal side mostly all wanted to go into Afghanastan

the Ron Paul or 3rd party groupies in the alt-media have no influence on me, I have not once in my life cared one word what Ron Paul or the alt-media ever said. I don't herd.

Even Elizabeth Warren has stated EVERYTHING is on the table for Iran.
So I am sure she was on board with Afghanastan or would have been.

inho

[niyad]

25. afghanistan offered to turn over bin laden, bushie refused. there were much better ways to

handle this, and we HAD (no longer) world-wide support.

please do not use the fact that you were in nyc to justify your support of the horrendous things that are happening now.

and, do not forget that one of the real reasons we were, and still are, in afghanistan, is because of that 917-mile natural gas pipeline. (some of us actually pay attention world-wide)

[Octafish]

94. How soon we forget.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9062578&mesg_id=9062682

Thank you for remembering the history, niyad. Amazing to see so many work so diligently to revise it in the retelling.

[niyad]

97. you are most welcome. it seems I have one of those inconvenient memories--just cannot forget

important pieces of information and events. quite annoying, in many cases.

[A Simple Game]

60. You seem to be OK with collateral damage in war and then

use the World Trade Center as justification for our going to war.

Do you even realize that the people that died in the World Trade Center were collateral damage?

Or is it only collateral damage that we cause that is OK in war?

You do realize the significance of their choice of targets on 9-11 don't you?

If we must retaliate for collateral damage, then shouldn't they have to retaliate for collateral damage?

Where would you have it stop?

[graham4anything]

76. Yes. OBL wanted to bankrupt America, and it worked for 10 years.

the WTC was a symbol that everyone in the world heard of, including the terrorists and OBL.
(and OBL was an architect by trade, so it was a challenge.) imho

and he wanted to finish what the WTC1 didn't do.

(much like most think 43 was avenging a personal grudge against 41 when he went into Iraq and finishing that off).

It's why people in most states in the USA have nothing to fear from international terrorists, but everything to fear from US terrorists.

9-11 will never happen the way it happened.
But that doesn't mean terrorism won't happen.

and even if the USA left completely, that also does not mean terrorists will stop being terrorists.

That too is a red herring.

the wars will go on regardless of whether or not the USA is involved. (and then people would say we were ignoring major problems.) (probably the same people in the alt-media too).

[RedCappedBandit]

99. You act as if our response somehow prevented terrorists from being able to act

'again and again'. As if our response was somehow different from the violence done to us to begin with.

[oldhippie]

21. ^^ this ^^^

I was also against the whole Afghanistan thing. I had read history.

[The Straight Story]

15. Four women and five children were killed, no mention of drones though - just airstrike (nt)

[G_j]

16. Are you kidding?

I was out demonstrating against the invasion of Afghanistan from day zero, along with many other committed peace activists.

[Hugabear]

24. You are un-fucking-believable. By all means, continue to support the slaughter of children

Nice to see that somebody here isn't phased one bit over the killing of children, as long as we're taking out suspected terrorists!

[graham4anything]

29. 34 children of some parent die every day from guns and bullets in private hands in the USA

I am for the complete ridding the streets of all guns/bullets except for federal/state/local law enforcers.

The mass murderer this week killed 5 children of some parent, yet there were actually people in the alt-media defending that terrorist.

(a child is a child no matter what the age, from 1 to 125 they are still a child of someone)

imho

So, is the WTC still standing???


Real people died on 9-11.
It was real.
Not to mention it is the direct cause for the world being at a precarious position financially since that time.

No matter ones opinion of Bush/Cheney, the problem with terrorism is still there today.
Terrorists existed long before W took office.
And still do.

We don't live in the cold war era anymore when its just the superpowers.

[marmar]

89. You will NEVER defeat terrorism by bombing people to bits.......

........ you will only create more terrorists. Fighting this bogus "war" via military means hasn't, isn't and won't ever work. Why is the concept so hard to grasp?

[Coyotl]

27. You could not be more WRONG!

Not only was I against it, but almost everyone I know was too!

There is a group of protestors in Corvallis who still have an anti-war protest EVERY DAY, and they have not missed a day since the war started!

http://www.jqjacobs.net/politics/impeach/

[graham4anything]

41. Dennis Kucinich was for it at the start, Bernie Sanders for it.

by most everyone, I was talking senate/house
I shall edit to reflect what I thought was obvious as this is a political board.

[Coyotl]

44. Before edit "People were against Bush going into IRAQ. No one was against going to Afghanastan."

Move the goal post much?

[graham4anything]

50. Thought everyone knew Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich and almost ALL senatete/house were 4 it.

MOST politicians including Sanders and Kucinich were FOR Afganasthan.
Thought everyone knew it, but then guess I shouldn't assume.

which is why I was adult enough to edit so as not to misunderstand.

I am not an absolutist.

[Art_from_Ark]

100. And 98 Senators signed on to the Tonkin Gulf Resolution

including J. William Fulbright, who went on to become one of the Vietnam War's biggest critics in the Senate.

[niyad]

45. interesting that you changed your title from "people" to "politicians" when it was pointed out

that many were, indeed, against us going into afghanistan. and no, it wasn't obvious you only meant politicians. nice try, though.

[graham4anything]

81. when someone didn't understand what was obvious, I changed it to make it clearer

isn't that how everyone should edit something?

No conspiracy theory there.

Because it was what I meant.
I post about politiicans as they are the ones that make the laws.

So its not very interesting actually.

I am not an absoutuist, who sticks to something when pointed out I made a brain fart
which happens more and more when one gets older.

This isn't 1968 anymore and sometimes what seems clear to me might be fuzzy.

So the correct answer would have been, thanks for clariffying what was meants.

Because you are doing what I did.
assuming
and as Tony Randall said on the Odd Couple in the 1970s...(though maybe Benny Hill said it earlier, or maybe someone else said it prior)

[niyad]

91. no, you didn't do it because it wasn't clear--you did it because you were shown to be WRONG,

and the more you keep trying to justify yourself, and dig yourself out of the hole into which you placed yourself with your nonsense, the deeper in you get.

I would say, quit trying, sweetie, you are only succeeding in making yourself look quite clueless. on the other hand, your efforts are proving quite amusing.

[Jackpine Radical]

12. It's HOW we went into Afghanistan, for one thing.

We didn't need to make a big military operation out of it; we could have accepted the assistance the whole rest of the world was offering us in those first days after 9-11 and done it as a massive police operation, but no. The American Empire had already been threatening the Taliban (carpet of gold or carpet of bombs, remember?), wanting to build pipelines and get at the scarce rare-earth metals that are known to exist there.

Bushco told them the summer before 9-11 that if they didn't play nice, we'd be on top of them by October. Guess what--we were right on schedule.

[G_j]

17. +1000

[niyad]

18. and don't forget that the afghans offered to give up bin laden, and bushie said no

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/09/20/newly-disclosed-documents-shed-more-light-on-early-taliban-offers-pakistan-role/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20011014/aponline135016_000.htm

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

26. Reading your postst is like taking an acid bath of stupidity. nt

[Coyotl]

28. How many is "just about nobody"? One, or two?

Wow, one of the lamest posts EVER!

[graham4anything]

33. Bernie sanders was FOR Afghanastan, like most, against Iraq. NOT Afghanastan.

and he is the #1 most liberal person in congress

(and I don't give 2 spits what Ron Paul ever said, he is someone to ever be admired).

[niyad]

48. you know what? I wouldn't care if every single politician in the world was in favour, many of us

around the world were, and are, against it. keep insisting the war is a good thing.

[graham4anything]

52. another red herring.

[niyad]

59. nice try, dear. but we read your original post, and all the carping in the world about sanders

and kucinich is not going to change what you wrote, and why you are getting the responses. the only red herring around here is what you are doing. but you go right on trying.

[choie]

55. Niyad - you rock!

I agree with you - I don't give a flying fuck which politicians were in favor of our immoral actions, including my beloved Bernie Sanders. Wrong is wrong is wrong.

[Enrique]

30. why only 10,000?

why imagine a death toll only three times the number killed on 9/11?

why not 50,000, then we just saved 49,990.

[polly7]

39. WTF is wrong with you?

Is that what you'd say if it was your kids?

It's EASY as hell to see why they hate.

[graham4anything]

47. Again, the statement is true. It has nothing to do with me personally.

Ever since the Dinosaurs, war has been going on.
War will go on a million years from now.

Blame congress who almost to a person voted for Afghanastan.

and the war in Afghanastan is almost over.

but Bush went into Iraq and that is what most politicians were agianst, as most voted for Afgahanastan.
There is a difference.

[polly7]

56. It has everything to do with you personally.

Check out a mirror and see if there's actually a reflection ..... because no person I know with a real heart and soul could dismiss the loss of innocent lives in such a sick, sad way.

You talk about 'war' like it's inevitable. Bullshit. These wars and invasions since 9/11 were a choice, and can be stopped at any time. If those running them have the same amount of concern as you do for little brown children mutilated, maimed and blown up for resources and empire, obviously, they'll go on forever.

[graham4anything]

61. hyperbole and personal. The empire word sure sounds like the Nader lines.

This isn't Star Wars

(BTW,if this was Star Wars, Martin Luther King Jr. would have been Obi-Wan Kanobi).
I think Lucas might have written Obi-Wan as a tribute.

Again, Blame the congress that voted for Afghanastan, it was almost all of them, and in looking up on google, oops, I see
Ron Paul indeed also voted for going into Afghanastan, so even he wanted that.

As this is a political DEMOCRATIC party board, supporting the democratic party,
well, I don't see many in office who voted against Afghanastan.

Maybe a list of the # would be helpful for the conversation.

[polly7]

65. No, it's just an observation, after seeing the same excuses

given for every little child destroyed in Bush's Iraq. You're not one bit different than they were back then, defending the same 'collateral damage'. It was ugly and destructive then, it's just as bad now.

[graham4anything]

67. But I wasn't against Afghanastan then. So someone saying I was is wrong.

Iraq was the wrong place. I wasn't for that.

[polly7]

68. I don't give a rat's azz what you said then or what you were for.

You see these children being killed in the same horrific ways as expendable today. That's beyond disgusting.

Grow a heart.

[choie]

92. this board is supposed to support

Democratic values - not just politicians that call themselves Democrats. Another blind follower heard from..

[graham4anything]

93. If it's good enough for Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, President Obama, Pres. H.R.Clinton

it's good enough for me.

[choie]

101. Just a follower, huh?

And will support Democrats no matter their lack of ethical backbone

[graham4anything]

102. President Obama is perhaps the finest, most ethical, genuine person in the world today.

on a scale of one to ten, I would rate President Obama at 10

Jimmy Carter and Ted Kennedy also rated at 10 in my book.

[morningfog]

51. What makes you think those three has the capability, motive and means to kill 10,000?

You are just pulling numbers out of your ass. DO you know the identities of the three? Who are the 10,000 the could have killed? Where would they have killed them?

[graham4anything]

57. It only took 19 to implement OBL's 9-11 plan.

9-11 happened.
It was real.
A real 3000 people died.
19 people did the actual event itself, on orders from OBL, who was hidden by the Taliban and in their country til he went to the other country.

It's not debateable that the above is true.

No matter if there are other events that did or did not lead up to it, the above events are true.

(It's like yesterday's story on the killer ex-cop terrrorizing California and in cold blood shooting and killing 5 and wounding others. Whatever the back story, that is what happened.

the rest is hyperbole.
(or in the alt-out of there media, conspiracy theories).

imho, feel free to disagree.

[Hugabear]

71. Your logic is beyond stupid - it's freeper logic

So it's okay to kill children, because the "bad guys" MIGHT have been plotting terror attacks to kill others?

Is there ANY evidence to this? Is there any information that they were plotting a terrorist attack? Or do we just kill ANYBODY that gets the label "Taliban" or "terrorist" thrown at them, regardless if we wind up killing civilians and children, just because we say they are the bad guys?

[morningfog]

84. I didn't ask about 9-11 or Dorner.

I asked what your basis was for claiming those 3 could have killed 10,000. As long as you are making shit up, why not claim they could have killed 10,000,000? And, why not claim that the innocent people killed could have saved 10,000 because one of them could have discovered a cure for cancer. The point is, you have no idea who was killed, why, or what their actual risk was.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

85. "LBJ, NADER! RON PAUL!!! LOUD NOISES!!! I LOVE LAMP!!!!" Those are basically the responses you'll

get from that one.

[morningfog]

86. I am learning that.

[theKed]

87. You forgot

Hillary!!Hillary!!

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

88. So LBJ, Bernie Sanders, Hillary a priest and a rabbi walk into a bar......

.

[theKed]

90. .

http://instantrimshot.com/index.php?sound=rimshot

[Bonobo]

96. Librarians would disagree, right?

[Taverner]

54. Just like LBJ took care of them in the Gulf of Tonkin...

[Hissyspit]

63. Or not.

Jesus fucking Christ.

[whatchamacallit]

73. Your little hollow heart whistles like an ocarina

[Hell Hath No Fury]

77. You are one sick individual.

A perfect example of how far down the toilet DU has gone.

On edit: Your strange, single-minded rants are beginning to "smell" familiar to this longtime DUer.

[Hissyspit]

79. "Plus the 3 themselves could have killed the 10 collateral anyhow" Really??

Seriously?

We had to kill the civilians in order to save them?

You're really making that argument??

Really????

Bad governments do bad things, too. Bad policies do bad things, too. Arrogant Americans do bad things, too.

[The Straight Story]

82. Nicely put - we have to kill innocents to save them (nt)

[Cali_Democrat]

103. Wut?

You can't be serious. This has to be a joke.

[EastKYLiberal]

20. Good news: 34,000 troops are coming home this year. nt

[niyad]

40. and how many will be left? we are in our second decade of war in that poor country.

[graham4anything]

31. Bernie Sanders (the most liberal senator) was FOR Afghanastan-from his own website

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/legislation/issue/?id=10311999-3eca-459b-bad2-caad567ca973

Following the tragic events of 9/11, the United States asked Afghanistan to eliminate al-Qaida and its leader Osama bin Laden from that nation, since bin Laden had planned the 9/11 attacks from his base in Afghanistan. When the Taliban government was unresponsive, the American government moved into Afghanistan to find bin Laden and other high-ranking al-Qaida leaders, to destroy the whole organization of al-Qaida and to remove the Taliban regime which supported and gave safe harbor to al-Qaida. Sen. Sanders supported this effort, believing that when a nation allowed, enabled and encouraged an attack on the United States and its citizens, America had the right to defend itself.

Sen. Sanders was thereafter highly critical of President Bush who, in going to war against Iraq, removed the military's attention from the need to capture bin Laden and eliminate his terror network. Years of a needless Iraqi war allowed bin Laden to escape to a safe haven, and to continue his hatred of our nation. It took many years before special military operations located and killed bin Laden on May 2, 2011 in his hiding place in Pakistan.

[The Straight Story]

32. But I don't think he thought killing innocent kids was a good idea like some do (nt)

[graham4anything]

34. It's a red herring. No one is FOR collateral deaths, but that happens in war.

[Hissyspit]

62. And there it is.

Endless war. No reason ever to question it.

I've never seen you post anything remotely insiteful on this website.

And learn to spell "Afghanistan."

[graham4anything]

70. The acceptance canard & one day at a time apply.

accept what one cannot change
change what one can't
and smart enough to know the difference.

Which is why I love LBJ.
anyone would have done what happened in Vietnam. Anyone.
Only LBJ gave us the good stuff. No one else would have spent their capital doing it at that time.

one day at a time.

[graham4anything]

35. He was for Afghanastan. Therefore he knows what happens in war.

[niyad]

66. let's try this another way, since you insist on supporting your views by hawking sanders.

being a politician does NOT confer infallibility on matters of faith, morals, decency or policy matters, no matter what you seem to be implying. remember slavery? the alien and sedition act? (wait, you probably would have been for that one). internment camps in the US for US citizens? rape-supporting pols who insist that women should be forced to carry to term a pregnancy caused by rape? shall I go on?

but you keep right on trying.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

36. But..but..it prevented the Taliban Navy from sending it's fleet to bombard Malibu.

"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?" Mohandas K. Gandhi

[graham4anything]

42. Complain to Congress and ask OBL why he did what he did.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

43. Obama has no control over the CIA and it's killers?

[green for victory]

37. The 10 civilians killed included five women and four children

Because winning hearts and minds is what We Do.

For Shame. We'll never even see their faces, let alone 4 days of media coverage about it.

It makes it so much easier.

[Octafish]

98. The innocents die to keep the world safe for billionaires

"Money trumps peace." - George W Bush, Feb. 14, 2007

Private Property ueber Alles, babies. And their mothers.

Thank you for putting what really matters into words, green for victory.

[Zorra]

38. Good news indeed! The more of 'em we kill off, the less problems global corporate conglometrates

will have extracting profit from those fabulously rich in mineral mines after we secure friendly control of the region.

[DCBob]

46. Of course this is horrible and I suspect if they had to do it over again they wouldnt have done it.

Airstrikes are messy.... even more messy than drones.

Bottom line.. its time to get out of that country.. we have done enough.

[polly7]

49. No ...... boiling a pot of soup over on the stove is 'messy'.

Having the bottom fall out of a garbage bag is 'messy'.

The loss of innocent CHILDREN and human beings in any situation is TRAGIC, and horrific.

[DCBob]

53. yes.. bad choice of words.

[polly7]

72. Sorry I was harsh.

I don't do well on these threads.

[patrice]

58. Sometimes I wonder if NATO isn't strategically incomptent & if that isn't encouraged by the

possibility of getting a drone program from Old Uncle Sugar-tits, as the U.N./IMF cry crocodile tears and the World Court blisses-out in its stratospheric ivory tower.

[whatchamacallit]

83. K&R n/t