Obama supporters: 60 Children Among Afghan Dead, U.N. Finds

blackascoal

The Force is With Me
... and you think further intrusion by the United States into Afghanistan and the widening of the war there is a good idea?

Obama does .. and if you support him, don't you support this? .. Let's here democrats say the words .. "collateral damage"

60 Children Among Afghan Dead, U.N. Finds

Published: August 26, 2008

KABUL, Afghanistan — A United Nations human rights team has found “convincing evidence” that some 90 civilians — among them 60 children — were killed in air strikes on a village in western Afghanistan on Thursday night, a statement issued by the United Nations mission in Kabul said, making it almost certainly the deadliest case of civilian casualties caused by any United States military operation in Afghanistan since 2001.

The United Nations the team visited the scene and interviewed survivors and local officials and elders, getting a name, age and gender of each person reported killed. The team reported that 15 people had been injured in the air strikes, which occurred in the middle of the night.

The numbers closely match those given by a government commission sent from Kabul to investigate the bombing, which put the total dead at up to 95.

Mohammad Iqbal Safi, the head of the parliamentary defense committee and a member of the government commission, said the 60 children were between three months old and 16 years old, all killed as they slept. “It was a heart breaking scene,” he said.

The death toll may even rise higher since heavy lifting gear is needed to uncover all the remains
, said one Western official who had seen the United Nations report.

“This is a matter of grave concern to the United Nations,” Kai Eide, the United Nations special representative for Afghanistan said in a statement. “It is vital that the International and Afghan military forces thoroughly review the conduct of this operation in order to prevent a repeat of this tragic incident,” he said.

The United Nations report adds pressure to the United States military, which has to date said only that 25 militants and five civilians were killed in the air strikes, which were aimed at a Taliban named Mullah Saddiq. The military announced it was conducting an investigation after the high civilian death toll was reported.

The bombing occurred around midnight, the United Nations statement said. “Foreign and Afghan military personnel entered the village of Nawabad in the Azizabad area of Shindand district,” it said. “Military operations lasted several hours during which air strikes were called in.” “The destruction from aerial bombardment was clearly evident, with some 7-8 houses having been totally destroyed and serious damage to many others,” it said.

The parliamentarian, Mr. Safi, said the villagers were preparing for a ceremony the next morning in memory of a man who had died some time before. Extended families from two tribes were visiting the village and there were lights of fires as the adults were cooking food for the ceremony, he said.

How the military came to call in air strikes on a civilian gathering still remains unclear. Two parliamentarians, Mr. Safi and Maulavi Gul Ahmad, who is from the area, said the villagers blamed tribal enemies for giving the military false intelligence.

“According to the villagers their enemies give false report to Americans that foreign fighters were gathering in the village,” Mr. Safi said.

Mr. Ahmad directly blamed the United States Special Forces, who are training the Afghan National Army and were present in the joint operation. “I can’t blame the Afghan National Army for the incident as they had no authority for leading the operation,” Mr. Ahmad said.

The government commission met with the commander of the United States forces in Herat province but he declined to answer their questions, saying the United States military was conducting its own investigation, government officials said.

Russia, at odds with the United States and much of the West over its recognition of two breakaway regions in the Central Asian country of Georgia, said it would raise the issue on Tuesday afternoon at the Security Council.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/27/world/asia/27herat.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
 
We killed hundreds of thousands of Germans to defeat fascism too.

If these were Iraqi kids, it would be twice the tragedy because the war has no justification. Afghanistan is about national defense and is justifiable to an extent, despite your "all war is unjustified" stance.

That being said, I don't know what the specific mission objectives are in Afghanistan. Does anyone?
 
We killed hundreds of thousands of Germans to defeat fascism too.

If these were Iraqi kids, it would be twice the tragedy because the war has no justification. Afghanistan is about national defense and is justifiable to an extent, despite your "all war is unjustified" stance.

That being said, I don't know what the specific mission objectives are in Afghanistan. Does anyone?

"That being said" said EVERYTHING that needs to be said.

There is no actual mission in Afghanistan and it has absolutely NOTHING to do with national defense. The Rand Corporation, as have many other leading experts on the issue of terrorism have acknowledged that terrorism is best suited for law enforcement.

We are in Afghanistan to protect the interests of corporations and the Caspian Sea Pipeline.

The useless needless deaths of these children is every bit as demonic as the deaths of Iraqi children. You cannot murder terrorism .. especially by committing terrorism.

What is sad is the recognition that democrats aren't a damn bit more humane or conscience about the industry of war and its consequences than are republicans.

You cannot compare WWII with Afghanistan or Iraq by any stretch of the imagination.

I have never said that all war is unjustified but the disticntion bewteen that which is justified and that which is not isn't that difficult to thinking people my brother.

Afghanistan is every bit the fraud Iraq was .. but with far greater consequences looming.
 
I don't buy that. Iraq was a fraud because it had nothing to do with anything. Afghanistan was in fact providing safe haven to AQ. Now Pakistan appears to be doing that, and only now is reluctantly pursuing them.

Law enforcement can't operate in a country controlled by the Taliban. The military isn't going to be the ones dismantling AQ, it'll be law enforcement agencies (like you said). The problem is that law enforcement agencies don't have the reach of the military.
 
Lets just leave. Leave the Afghan people to the taliban because then children, especially female children will have it so much better in Afghanistan. And if you support withdrawing, isn't that what you support? The taliban taking over, imposing draconian laws on females, allowing their murders, their enslavement, their complete loss of self determination. We should just walk away and let whatever happens there happen. Afghanistan under the Taliban makes Saddam's Iraq look like a day at Disneyworld with a side pass to epcot. You really think you will save one more child by leaving and letting the taliban take over? They will be different dead but the deaths will continue.
 
We killed hundreds of thousands of Germans to defeat fascism too.

Token neoconservative WWII comparison.

If these were Iraqi kids, it would be twice the tragedy because the war has no justification.

The death of kids is always an equal tragedy no matter the "justification".

Afghanistan is about national defense and is justifiable to an extent, despite your "all war is unjustified" stance.

That being said, I don't know what the specific mission objectives are in Afghanistan. Does anyone?

And what the hell? If we invade one nation Al Quaeda will just grow stronger, move to another one, and use our invasion as a tool to recruit more people.
 
... and you think further intrusion by the United States into Afghanistan and the widening of the war there is a good idea?

Obama does .. and if you support him, don't you support this? .. Let's here democrats say the words .. "collateral damage"

Whoa there.......wait a minute. How does killing 60 civilians come onto Obama's shoulders? He's not running this mess.......Bush is.

If Bush hadn't taken his eye off the prize, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in today........Afghanistan would have been a shining example of how Democracy could be.........but no......he had to go and invade another country, and not only that.........but take out the soldiers that were doing the job and getting it done in Afghanistan and move them over to get the oil.

You want this over and done with.......I want this over and done with.....but to say supporting Obama has anything to do with killing women and children, when he hasn't even had the helm yet.......is a bit outragious.
 
Lets just leave. Leave the Afghan people to the taliban because then children, especially female children will have it so much better in Afghanistan. And if you support withdrawing, isn't that what you support? The taliban taking over, imposing draconian laws on females, allowing their murders, their enslavement, their complete loss of self determination. We should just walk away and let whatever happens there happen. Afghanistan under the Taliban makes Saddam's Iraq look like a day at Disneyworld with a side pass to epcot. You really think you will save one more child by leaving and letting the taliban take over? They will be different dead but the deaths will continue.

Do you think they have it any better now? Do you think they had it better even after the begining of the war.......also you might want to look a little closer at the Iraqi Constitution, just to find out what our men and women are fighting for.
 
Do you think they have it any better now? Do you think they had it better even after the begining of the war.......also you might want to look a little closer at the Iraqi Constitution, just to find out what our men and women are fighting for.
I am talking about Afghan children and women. Yes women have it better under Karzai than they did under the taliban. WOmen actually had more rights under Saddam than they do now. Now they are subject to Islamic law where before they were not.
 
I am talking about Afghan children and women. Yes women have it better under Karzai than they did under the taliban. WOmen actually had more rights under Saddam than they do now. Now they are subject to Islamic law where before they were not.

Yeah that's a cruel irony. You replace a dictator with a democracy that's just as cruel.
 
Whoa there.......wait a minute. How does killing 60 civilians come onto Obama's shoulders? He's not running this mess.......Bush is.

If Bush hadn't taken his eye off the prize, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in today........Afghanistan would have been a shining example of how Democracy could be.........but no......he had to go and invade another country, and not only that.........but take out the soldiers that were doing the job and getting it done in Afghanistan and move them over to get the oil.

You want this over and done with.......I want this over and done with.....but to say supporting Obama has anything to do with killing women and children, when he hasn't even had the helm yet.......is a bit outragious.

You are missing his point Lily. He is anti-war and Obama is saying he will put additional troops in Afghanistan so therefore by supporting Obama you are supporting the continuation of this Bush policy and these are the results.
 
I still support the idea of being in Afghanistan. But to be honest, I haven't got a clue on what the stategy is for securing it and ensuring that the taliban can't and won't regroup.

If either of the candidates can take a more diplomatic approach with limited military missions and stabiliize that region I think Obama can.

McCain will just "bomb bomb bomb away'
 
You are missing his point Lily. He is anti-war and Obama is saying he will put additional troops in Afghanistan so therefore by supporting Obama you are supporting the continuation of this Bush policy and these are the results.

Afghanistan was a democratic and republican endeavor and very few on either side went against it including myself. I like I said in a previous post, if iether of the major party candidates running could turn it around, I think Obama could.
 
Lets just leave. Leave the Afghan people to the taliban because then children, especially female children will have it so much better in Afghanistan. And if you support withdrawing, isn't that what you support? The taliban taking over, imposing draconian laws on females, allowing their murders, their enslavement, their complete loss of self determination. We should just walk away and let whatever happens there happen. Afghanistan under the Taliban makes Saddam's Iraq look like a day at Disneyworld with a side pass to epcot. You really think you will save one more child by leaving and letting the taliban take over? They will be different dead but the deaths will continue.

The problem with your argument is that you inject the same American imperialistic "I know what's better for everybody else than they do" mentality and it's the same mentality that murdered hundereds of thousands of Iraqis .. for their own good of course.

If "democracy" is to come to any nation it must come from within, not by the whim of imperialistic nations like ours.

Go ask the parents of these 60 dead children how much they thank America for killing them .. for their own benefit of course.

Additionally, I don't possess the mechanism you seem to have to ignore the FACT that we are in Afghanistan to protect a pipeline.

But you didn't support the war on Iraq?
 
The problem with your argument is that you inject the same American imperialistic "I know what's better for everybody else than they do" mentality and it's the same mentality that murdered hundereds of thousands of Iraqis .. for their own good of course.

If "democracy" is to come to any nation it must come from within, not by the whim of imperialistic nations like ours.

Go ask the parents of these 60 dead children how much they thank America for killing them .. for their own benefit of course.

Additionally, I don't possess the mechanism you seem to have to ignore the FACT that we are in Afghanistan to protect a pipeline.

But you didn't support the war on Iraq?

The fact is that women in Afghanistan pre 9/11 were subjugated to abhorrent human rights abuse. We aren't talking about a country that was stable and thriving. Equating it to Iraq on any level is an unfair comparison.
 
Whoa there.......wait a minute. How does killing 60 civilians come onto Obama's shoulders? He's not running this mess.......Bush is.

If Bush hadn't taken his eye off the prize, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in today........Afghanistan would have been a shining example of how Democracy could be.........but no......he had to go and invade another country, and not only that.........but take out the soldiers that were doing the job and getting it done in Afghanistan and move them over to get the oil.

You want this over and done with.......I want this over and done with.....but to say supporting Obama has anything to do with killing women and children, when he hasn't even had the helm yet.......is a bit outragious.

First, Bush had his eye ON the prize, you believe the "prize" was terrorists, but Bush knew better. The prize then as it is now, OIL and POWER. You didn't have your eye on the same prize Bush did.

And in case you aren't aware my friend, Obama supports this and intends to get us even further involved in Afghanistan, which is on fire .. AND he intends to strike deeper into Pakistan, which is on fire.

"Obama proclaimed that as president, he would “wage the war that has to be won,” which means “getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan.” He went on to explain that an Obama administration would deploy at least two additional brigades to Afghanistan “to re-enforce our counterterrorism operations and support NATO’s efforts against the Taliban. As we step up our commitment, our European friends must do the same, and without the burdensome restrictions that have hampered NATO’s efforts.” Obama is urging a significant increase in violence in Afghanistan, which has already witnessed a sharp rise in the number of civilian deaths in recent months."

"In the most ominous portion of his speech, Obama continued: “I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.” In other words, Obama promises to launch unilateral attacks against targets on Pakistani soil."


"Actionable intelligence" just murdered 60 children .. which didn't do a goddamn thing about American security or Afghanistan "democracy."

Obama is doing the same corporatist dance of war that Bush did.

So the answer is yes, hell yes, if you support Obama, then surely you support this.
 
The fact is that women in Afghanistan pre 9/11 were subjugated to abhorrent human rights abuse. We aren't talking about a country that was stable and thriving. Equating it to Iraq on any level is an unfair comparison.


Jesus sister, isn't this the same bullshit rationale we heard about Iraqi women to justify mass-murdering them?

It isn't "terrorism" that oppresses Afghanistan women, it's their culture. You can't attack and mass-murder innocent people because you don't like their culture. That's demonic.

Are we headed to Africa next to mass-murder them to change their culture?

How about the Chinese?
 
Last edited:
I still support the idea of being in Afghanistan. But to be honest, I haven't got a clue on what the stategy is for securing it and ensuring that the taliban can't and won't regroup.

If either of the candidates can take a more diplomatic approach with limited military missions and stabiliize that region I think Obama can.

McCain will just "bomb bomb bomb away'

THERE IS NO MISSION IN AFGHANISTAN

We are there to make American presidents look good and as if they are actually doing something. We are there because war is our business.

How is it that so many people can support a war that they have no clue what the mission is?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top