Dozens of Afghan civilians die in air raids: residents

JBeee

Time Out
Jun 1, 2007
1,826
52
48
Fri Jul 27, 6:32 AM ET


KANDAHAR, Afghanistan (Reuters) - Dozens of civilians, including women and children, have been killed in two foreign air strikes in southern Afghanistan, residents and a local member of parliament said on Friday.
if(window.yzq_d==null)window.yzq_d=new

One of the raids by NATO hit houses in the Girishk district of Helmand province on Thursday evening, killing up to 50 civilians, a group of some 20 residents reported to journalists in Kandahar, the main city in the south.

Wali Jan Sabri, a parliamentarian from Helmand, said he had credible information that between 50 to 60 civilians had been killed in a battle between the Taliban and NATO forces in Girishk.
He said most of the victims were killed in air strikes.

"Yes, there was a battle ... and most of those killed were from NATO bombardment," he told Reuters.
The district chief of Girishk, Manaf Khan, said more than 20 civilians were killed in NATO bombing when they were trying to flee the battle.

"The fighting was fierce between Taliban and NATO," he told Reuters. "Civilians began to flee and 27 or 28 of them were killed while fleeing NATO bombing. I do not have information about the wounded," he said.
He later phoned Reuters to say said that 50 Taliban were also killed in the bombing and battle. The Taliban could not be reached for comment.

A spokesman for British forces in Helmand said there was an ongoing operation in the province, but denied there had been any civilian casualties around Girishk.

"We have no reports of any such incidents in Girishk yesterday at all. There have been no people taken to the hospital ... in relation to anything around Girishk," said Lieutenant-Colonel Charlie Mayo.
"Because the Taliban don't wear uniforms like us, as soon as they are killed, they are called civilians, the key is are they male or female and if they are male, what age are they?"

Due to the remoteness of the region it was not immediately possible to verify the information.
Some 2,000 British and Afghan army forces have been conducting an operation in the Upper Girishk valley this week to clear Taliban insurgents from the area.

The second attack hit two houses in the Char Cheno district of neighboring Uruzgan late on Thursday afternoon and killed 15 civilians there, several villagers from the area told reporters by telephone.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
Again pointing out:

For fighting in Civilian Areas, the Taliban forces are the ones responsible for the Civilian deaths under the rules of war.

It is not the responsibility of NATO to avoid hitting human shields, its the responsibility of the Taliban not to use them and to not stage combat operations from civilian areas.
 

BitWhys

what green dots?
Apr 5, 2006
3,157
15
38
Say it a little louder. I don't think they can hear you in Afghanistan.
 

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
And it this thread was being read by Afghanistan residents that would matter. But it is meant for a domestic audience, and is meant to trick people into agreeing with a viewpoint, rather than win them over through reason and logic.
 

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
They are more often the product of cold indifferent logic than heated emotion. Anger can start a skirmish, a riot or even fuel a war, but wars are rarely fought over emotion.
 
May 28, 2007
3,866
67
48
Honour our Fallen
And it this thread was being read by Afghanistan residents that would matter. But it is meant for a domestic audience, and is meant to trick people into agreeing with a viewpoint, rather than win them over through reason and logic.
I feel the same way....
I don't think the media should do anything but report facts....
There is more money in selling viewpoints along with the facts.
 

BitWhys

what green dots?
Apr 5, 2006
3,157
15
38
They are more often the product of cold indifferent logic than heated emotion...

and the sorry excuse you've presented for civilian death is something more than that?

Tell that to the parents holding their lifeless child. and Urban the Second for that matter. He'll be pleased to know all those indulgences were precious little else.
 
Last edited:

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
And yet thats what it is.

No matter how you shape the image and try and throw one emotion after another and confuse people. It boils down to the raw numbers. Regardless of the tragedy now, in the end there will be fewer dead. Less teenage girls stoned to death for allowing themselves to be raped, less mothers raped for the "Crimes" of their sons. Fewer people shot to instill fear and order.

When you decide to condone the use of human shields as a viable tactic, then you've got problems. When you in effect say that no matter the cause it never justifies death and hardship, is a slap in the face to all that the a free society stands for, it is saying the civil rights movement was evil. It is to ignore the very reason we think killing foreigners is wrong, that we think all people are equal.

Regardless of how you try to lie to people to trick them into your view, it isn't right. Because it is far to easy to be blinded by emotion with so much of it swirling about.

For someone who talks about everything being faschist you should remember the mantra of the faschismo, it is to think with your heart, to do what feels right rather than seeing what is true and what actually is right.
 

JBeee

Time Out
Jun 1, 2007
1,826
52
48
" Regardless of the tragedy now, in the end there will be fewer dead. Less teenage girls stoned to death for allowing themselves to be raped, less mothers raped for the "Crimes" of their sons."


Hypocrites, the lot of us?

PUMMELING MAMA

29-Jul-07

By David Podvin
The police officer put a gun to the driver’s head and demanded that she orally copulate him. To avoid being murdered she complied, after which he provided the choice of victimized silence or fatal reprisal. The woman tempted fate by contacting the district attorney, who used DNA testing to contradict the officer’s denial that any sexual contact had occurred. During the prosecution’s case the accused was proven to have told one self-incriminating lie after another. The defense attorney then played a familiar trump card, labeling the victim a woman of easy virtue “with whom sex was always an implied option”. It took the jury of eleven males and a female less than two hours to acquit.

That scenario recently played out in California. Half a planet away, a young lady in Pakistan was being accused of premarital fornication. Her religiously conservative family reported the offense to the authorities, who decreed that she must be appropriately chastened. The terrified woman was dragged screaming into the village square, whereupon townspeople threw rocks until she could scream no more. The purification process included burning her battered corpse and scattering the ashes to the winds. Having cast out the evil in their midst, the people of the community – including the man with whom she had fornicated – could now resume leading their virtuous lives.


It is open season on females, the only hunting season that begins each January first and concludes six days after Christmas. This ancient blood sport is a global phenomenon that transcends ethnic and religious differences. Jamaican law does not prohibit marital rape, incest or sexual harassment. In Hungary and Nigeria, rape is ostensibly illegal but rarely prosecuted. Women of India who report being sexually assaulted are often killed for having scandalized society. In England, more than a thousand women are annually maimed or slain when they reject arranged marriages. Across the Islamic world, one hundred million females have been genitally mutilated. Throughout China, countless newborn girls are drowned so that the one child quota can be filled by boys.

And then there is the Land of the Free, where the Justice Department has documented that an American woman is raped every two minutes. Fewer than half of victims report the crime because they anticipate being raped again, this time figuratively (but no less painfully) by a legal system that assumes women must have been “asking for it”. DOJ also reports that every five hours a woman is murdered by her husband or boyfriend. According to a study by the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, the average prison sentence for men who kill their female partners is less than six years. By contrast, the average sentence for committing armed robbery is twelve years. The implicit rationale is that men should receive twice as much time for stealing other people’s property as they get for killing their own.

Even nominal punishment is rarely forthcoming when misogynists merely vandalize their property. DOJ states that a third of American wives are violently abused, while fewer than one out of a hundred American husbands serve time for abusing them. It is not as though the beatings are stealthy. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention national survey found that thirty-four percent of American adults have witnessed a man beating his female partner. However, a poll commissioned by Redbook
Magazine revealed that forty percent of Americans do not consider “slapping or hitting or punching” to constitute domestic violence. In the United States pummeling Mama is an immensely popular recreational activity, while safeguarding women does not rank very high on the public policy agenda.
In fact, it barely ranks at all. Domestic violence against females is the most common crime in America, but there exists a dissolute silence on the matter. Although politicians declare war on everything from pornography to terrorism to drug abuse they have never invoked a War Against Violent Misogyny, doubtlessly because doing so would alienate America’s vast fraternity of violent misogynists. As a result, women at risk do not even receive the courtesy of empty political rhetoric.

The brutal onslaught against females goes unmentioned during the presidential campaign. That the leading Democrat is a woman has proven irrelevant since the requirement for advocating female rights is possession not of a vagina but of a soul. That prerequisite also disqualifies conservatives from protecting women. Republican candidates are busily courting their party’s theocratic wing that opposed the Violence Against Women Act because it was intrusive, intruding as it did between a man and his chattel. The Religious Right also disdains funding battered women’s shelters on the basis that preventing domestic violence is inconsistent with biblical values.

And it is. Anyone who faithfully accepts the Torah or New Testament or Koran believes that women exist to obey men. Theology is a major factor impeding women’s rights, just as religious faith has long been a facilitator of slavery. There are more human beings enslaved than ever before, and the vast majority of them are female. In Saharan labor camps and in Filipino brothels and in all the best sheikdoms captive women are worked to death or raped to death. Slavery is not just a Third World phenomenon. The Japanese acquire sex slaves throughout Asia, women who are devoid of any rights in Japan. The outcry from the civilized world oscillates between inaudible and nonexistent because when it comes to defending women there is no civilized world.

The United States is the self-proclaimed beacon of liberty, yet in America justice for females remains a poetic myth. The Nicole Brown Simpson case provides a gruesome textbook example. After being serially assaulted by her husband Nicole summoned the police, whose indifference ultimately made them complicit in her demise. The abuser had warned that he would kill her if she ever left, but eventually Nicole could not endure the pain and fled. True to his word, Orenthal Simpson slaughtered the woman he had labeled a “disobedient bitch”. At the criminal trial his lawyers smeared the deceased as being a ****, a lie made all the more galling by the fact that her pathologically promiscuous murderer was actually the ****. Nevertheless, in the antediluvian American legal process when females are accused of ****tiness the accusation usually negates the value of their lives. The Simpson jurors were entirely unmoved by Nicole’s slaying, and some even blamed her for the conflict. It seems that Nicole Brown Simpson had been “asking for it”.

Acolytes of the system claim that the Simpson case was a high profile aberration involving celebrity and money and race, but they know better. American courts are callous to female victims from all classes and races, whether the participants are famous or obscure. Only when women dare protect themselves does the judiciary become indignant. More than half of females who kill their male partners can document they did so as a result of being abused – in other words, these women fought back. The average prison sentence for such nonconformists is fifteen years, or nine years longer than the average sentence for men who execute their female partners in cold blood. The American legal system was devised by men for men and functions accordingly.

Feminist groups do not function at all. Patrica Ireland is president of the National Organization For Women, a group that theoretically promotes the cause of women’s rights. The operative word is “theoretically”. Ireland is a multiculturalist, as opposed to being a feminist (the two are mutually exclusive). She would not condemn Mister Simpson for decapitating Nicole because multiculturalism subordinates ethics to ethnicity. The day after the criminal jury endorsed Simpson’s murder of his ex-wife, NOW’s Los Angeles chapter angrily declared the issue was “not about racism but about violence against women.” Ireland immediately condemned her subordinates for being “racially insensitive” and she forbid “any further public statements that clearly violate NOW’s commitment to stopping racism.” NOW’s commitment to “stopping racism” negated its commitment to stopping gynocide. As with virtually all self-styled women’s rights leaders, Ireland is a politically correct reprobate whose moral cowardice exacerbates female suffering.

By contrast, when African American football player Michael Vick was implicated in killing pit bulls the People For The Ethical Treatment Of Animals immediately began a campaign to make him the poster child for depravity. Meanwhile, in Texas a man convicted of battering his wife was sentenced to attend anger management classes, while a man convicted of battering his German Shepherd was sentenced to attend jail. Female crime victims can only wish that American society would value them as highly as it values pets.

Any woman who witnessed the Simpson grotesquerie would be crazy to expect support from law enforcement, the criminal justice system, or women’s rights groups. During every step of Nicole’s death march she was betrayed by those sworn to protect her…then, she was betrayed posthumously. There are many females who have lived the nightmare prior to perishing in it. In New York, multicultural misogyny struck again when an Asian immigrant who murdered his wife was granted probation after he labeled the victim an adulteress and insisted that by Chinese tradition her killing was obligatory. Traditional family values honor no boundaries.

The long term answer to misogyny is education. Little boys need to be taught in school what so many will never learn at home - that physically abusing females is always unacceptable and failure to honor that principle will incur severe punishment. This country’s biggest problem is lousy parenting, the cesspool from which all other problems flow. When it comes to deterring violent misogyny American parents merit a failing grade, so to achieve a just society the public schools must inculcate boys in civilized behavior. Young males should not be exalting the misogynistic God of antiquity. They should be learning the moral boundaries of modernity and experiencing the consequences of exceeding those boundaries.

Adult males must also learn to dread the consequences of abusing females. According to federal statistics, seven hundred American women will be raped today. Rape was similarly widespread in Cuba until that crime was made a capital offense. As a result, rape has virtually disappeared from the island and Cuban women live without the fear of being sexually molested. Since Americans insist upon having the death penalty it may as well be used judiciously, and nothing is more judicious than freeing women from the specter of being raped.

Motherhood is often lionized as the quintessence of Americanism, so when someone clobbers Mother it is a crime against the nation. Spousal abuse should therefore be a federal offense, which would require violent misogynists to have their cases heard in the federal judiciary where the conviction rate is ninety-five percent. Sentences should be lengthened and recidivists should be incarcerated permanently. Under California’s Three Strikes Rule an offender was given a life sentence for stealing pizza. The time has finally arrived for God’s Very Favorite Nation to declare that – conservative religious dissent notwithstanding - our female citizens merit at least as much protection as the law accords fast food.

There is also an ethical obligation for the United States to confront violent misogynists abroad. Our country loves to sing of its moral superiority, but when it comes to defending females the words and the music just don’t match. America passively assents as most of humanity endures persecution, and such ethical lethargy is hardly consistent with being the “greatest nation the world has ever known!”. Truth in advertising dictates that the USA must take the lead to ensure brutally misogynistic countries are sanctioned and humiliated. Societies that mutilate clitorises do not deserve acceptance from the community of nations; those cultures should be diplomatic and economic pariahs until their barbarity subsides.

Violent misogyny is an enduring plague for which the cure is vigilance. The burden of generating that vigilance falls exclusively upon people who embrace traditional liberal values. It was vigilant liberals who vanquished the malevolence of Nazism and who eradicated the depravity of Jim Crow. No one but vigilant liberals can defeat the scourge of misogyny. Conservatives are morally absent without leave, moderates excel only at equivocating, and leftists perform an ethnicity check before deciding whether opposing injustice is the chic thing to do. Now as always, liberals must champion their stated beliefs or evil will prevail.
 

BitWhys

what green dots?
Apr 5, 2006
3,157
15
38
...you should remember the mantra of the faschismo, it is to think with your heart, to do what feels right rather than seeing what is true and what actually is right.

So by your account the WW II Axis was all about emotion but wars rarely are.

you sure you've thought this one all the way through?

and quite frankly, in my world the killing of innocents for a greater cause is small consolation to the survivors and to use said greater cause as an excuse is nothing short of absolute heartlessness.
 
Last edited:

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
@Jbeee And do you see the difference? That cop got the full force of the law thrown against him, in Afghanistan he would have gotten a promotion. The difference is not that bad people exist, it is how they are treated. Are they punished or lauded as a heroes? Btw, Gynocide is an emotional appeal that is not only not what was going on, but a direct ploy to try and trick people through the emotionally loaded term genocide. That part of the problem, don't try and trick people. Just be blunt with the truth. If that doesn't sway people you don't want them swayed anyways.


@ BW No, I never claimed such a thing. I said leading people around by emotion rather than letting them think was one of Benito's mantra. To blind people with emotional reactions and never allow them to think, to reserve thinking for those in charge. That is what you are preaching now.

You are in the end saying "Don't worry who is to blame, people are dead, hell with a trial or who is guilty, throw someone in jail, the nearest man goes to jail!". If this were domestic rather than foreign it would be equivalent of throwing the police in jail because they were involved in a shoot out with the Aryan nation, when the aryan nation took hostages and started shooting at cops and "impure" civilians. I mean, you could sit down and go "Who is really to blame here, and was it a good idea for the police to defend themselves?" . Thought or Emotion?

Its small solace to those who die in the gunbattle true, but how much solace is it to the much larger number of people who now don't die? How much solace is it to the man who loves the wrong woman, or loves the wrong man. How much solace is it to them to be alive instead of dead?

Would your solace of non-interference and not risking your own life for what you consider "the immediate good" bring solace to them as they were tortured to death? Would their relatives care that this was just easier for you?

It is easy to blind people with emotion to either view in a war, that is why more than anything you need honesty and impartiality. You need to be able to see the war without clouded judgements and broad generalizations made on isolated incidents.
 

BitWhys

what green dots?
Apr 5, 2006
3,157
15
38
So by your account the WW II Axis was all about emotion but wars rarely are.
...
@ BW No, I never claimed such a thing...
...you should remember the mantra of the faschismo, it is to think with your heart, to do what feels right rather than seeing what is true and what actually is right.
They are more often the product of cold indifferent logic than heated emotion. Anger can start a skirmish, a riot or even fuel a war, but wars are rarely fought over emotion.
if you say so
 

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
I do, and show that very clearly, even in the post you quote. And thats what im talking about, you still focus on trying to lie people into agreement rather than presenting the facts. In your case by quoting bits and pieces to form a new picture, ignoring all the bits that don't fit with this new jigsaw of "Truthy" that you are trying to set togethor.

Anger can start a skirmish, a riot or even fuel a war, but wars are rarely fought over emotion.

AS you can see, from a post you quoted, It even there explains how anger and passion and using emotion can fuel a war, but it never controls it. Fascism is about those in charge doing the thinking, and everyone else being distracted by emotion.

As someone who talks with self authority on the government style, it is apparant not only that you knew this, but that you try to incorporate it into your own life. If you can't beat em join em eh?
 

BitWhys

what green dots?
Apr 5, 2006
3,157
15
38
whatever. at least I'm not the one saying the citizenry should just suck it up and blame some else when we kill them.
 

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
No, your the one saying we should just let people be tortured and murdered.

Why help people If you don't have to see them everyday eh?


Heres a thought, how about we sit down and objectively see without emotional clouding what really is a better course of action.

Oh, what do you know, Its what I've been suggesting?
 

BitWhys

what green dots?
Apr 5, 2006
3,157
15
38
If all that's true it speaks volumes about the nature of objectivity.
 

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
In any situation involving people ruling by force, whatever course of action you take, even inaction, results in avoidable deaths.

In the end you have to sit down and see what causes the fewest people to die, and the least suffering in the long run.

That doesn't mean whats going on is the best course of action, it could be completely wrong. But trying to cloud the situation with more emotional appeals doesn't help. You can't use one example of the horrors of war to make a decision, you must also think of the horrors that come out of not waging the war.

Even if the Taliban could rule peacefully, would they have won VS the Northern Alliance? would that war have been longer and more brutal than the one we are in now? How many fewer people die with us using smart weapons versus low tech carpet bombardments between the N.A. and Taliban?

Would more people die after the war as well, which system will result in fewer deaths and suffering, Ours or Theirs?

In all cases our choices could have been wrong, but clouding the issue even more just prevents any reasonable assessment of the situation and what should be done.
 

BitWhys

what green dots?
Apr 5, 2006
3,157
15
38
In any situation involving people ruling by force, whatever course of action you take, even inaction, results in avoidable deaths.

In the end you have to sit down and see what causes the fewest people to die, and the least suffering in the long run.

That doesn't mean whats going on is the best course of action, it could be completely wrong. But trying to cloud the situation with more emotional appeals doesn't help. You can't use one example of the horrors of war to make a decision, you must also think of the horrors that come out of not waging the war.

Even if the Taliban could rule peacefully, would they have won VS the Northern Alliance? would that war have been longer and more brutal than the one we are in now? How many fewer people die with us using smart weapons versus low tech carpet bombardments between the N.A. and Taliban?

Would more people die after the war as well, which system will result in fewer deaths and suffering, Ours or Theirs?

In all cases our choices could have been wrong, but clouding the issue even more just prevents any reasonable assessment of the situation and what should be done.

I've developed a deep skepticism for any ethic that relies on the ends justifying the means, and for far less extreme circumstances than the bombing of civilians.
 

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
Its a valid concern.

Yet if the ends never justified the means, one would be forever at the whim of those who if nothing else are born sociopaths with no ability to feel empathy.

After all, if the ends never justified the means then even a defensive war would be immoral, the simple act of legal policework would be immoral.

Im not saying you hold those views, just that surely you admit there is a line where the ends do justify the means, and generally that line is figured out for reasons of common sense over emotion.