International U.S. and Afghan Forces Killed More Civilians Than Taliban Did, Report Finds

[VivaRevolution]

(The day before the Sept. 11 attacks, Clinton told businessmen in Australia that he had decided against launching a strike in Kandahar out of concern for civilian casualties: ”I nearly got him. And I could have killed him, but I would have to destroy a little town called Kandahar in Afghanistan and kill 300 innocent women and children, and then I would have been no better than him. And so I didn’t do it.”)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...n-laden/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.1f18df6839f0

That is like 2% as bad as when we let OBL escape from Tora Bora.

Did we ever get a explanation for why those special forces weren't given the support they needed to keep OBL from escaping to Pakistan?

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

That is like 2% as bad as when we let OBL escape from Tora Bora.

Did we ever get a explanation for why those special forces weren't given the support they needed to keep OBL from escaping to Pakistan?

I think the mission leader asked for the support over the radio during the op... but can't recall what the given reason was. I think the request was for Rangers and it may have been decided by risk/reward estimation.

I'll try to find it, I know I've got the video interview somewhere

 

[m25105]

The idea that isn't to bomb people into righteousness, it's to kill the terrorists they let into the country.
We told the Taliban to hand over UBL, and were met with silence.

Would the US shelter and hide the most wanted international murderer in the world?
No. The answer is no.

Bullshit.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20011014/aponline135016_000.htm
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ban-offer-to-surrender-bin-laden-9143208.html
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia/2011/09/20119115334167663.html

7 months before the September 11th 2001 attack.

After the attack on September 11th 2001

 

[m25105]

Would the US shelter and hide the most wanted international murderer in the world?
No. The answer is no.

And YOU ARE sheltering war criminals. This is what makes it so.. enraging at the double standard you yanks have, you hold everyone to a certain standard, but not yourselves, and you lie about it.
Kissinger is seen as a noble statesman, that should tell everyone how you lot view war criminals. "It's alright if we do it."

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

Bullshit.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20011014/aponline135016_000.htm
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ban-offer-to-surrender-bin-laden-9143208.html
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia/2011/09/20119115334167663.html

7 months before the September 11th 2001 attack.

After the attack on September 11th 2001

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5
Contingent on providing proof to the Taliban that UBL committed the atrocity.


Returning to the White House after a weekend at Camp David, the president said the bombing would not stop, unless the ruling Taliban "turn [bin Laden] over, turn his cohorts over, turn any hostages they hold over." He added, "There's no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he's guilty". In Jalalabad, deputy prime minister Haji Abdul Kabir - the third most powerful figure in the ruling Taliban regime - told reporters that the Taliban would require evidence that Bin Laden was behind the September 11 terrorist attacks in the US, but added: "we would be ready to hand him over to a third country".

The offer came a day after the Taliban's supreme leader rebuffed Bush's "second chance" for the Islamic militia to surrender Bin Laden to the US.

They knew what was required.

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

And YOU ARE sheltering war criminals. This is what makes it so.. enraging at the double standard you yanks have, you hold everyone to a certain standard, but not yourselves, and you lie about it.
Kissinger is seen as a noble statesman, that should tell everyone how you lot view war criminals. "It's alright if we do it."

I'm not saying it's alright.
I'm saying there are reasons and other ways to see the same set of circumstances.
Kissinger is indeed worthy of condemnation but you're shooting with a sawed off here.

Speaking of holding others to standards one doesn't have for themselves, what country are you from?

 

[m25105]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5
Contingent on providing proof to the Taliban that UBL committed the atrocity.


Returning to the White House after a weekend at Camp David, the president said the bombing would not stop, unless the ruling Taliban "turn [bin Laden] over, turn his cohorts over, turn any hostages they hold over." He added, "There's no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he's guilty". In Jalalabad, deputy prime minister Haji Abdul Kabir - the third most powerful figure in the ruling Taliban regime - told reporters that the Taliban would require evidence that Bin Laden was behind the September 11 terrorist attacks in the US, but added: "we would be ready to hand him over to a third country".

The offer came a day after the Taliban's supreme leader rebuffed Bush's "second chance" for the Islamic militia to surrender Bin Laden to the US.

They knew what was required.

Gee asking for proof. And if you know someone is guilty it's easy to prove it. They didn't provide any proof. Anyone that reads about it can see that the U.S. was hell bent on invading Afghanistan and Iraq after the September 11th attack of 2001 (which baffled many "Why are we going after Iraq?").

http://archive.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/01/11/bush_began_iraq_plan_pre_911_oneill_says/
https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.co...-light-on-early-taliban-offers-pakistan-role/

 

[ShinkanPo]

The year after 9/11, the most popular name for a newborn boy in Afghanistan was Osama.

These countries aren't free of responsibility for their own. Export terror and chaos, import corrective measures you'll bitch about for decades.

@Yorkist was on to this a while ago in a different thread.
I believe he was debating this with @Fazz .

What about Sadam anyone love Sadam or Sadat?

 

[oldshadow]

People die in wars.

The only question is we’re we justified in going in.

Afghanistan, yes.

However we don’t need to be world police and should not be.

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

Gee asking for proof. And if you know someone is guilty it's easy to prove it. They didn't provide any proof. Anyone that reads about it can see that the U.S. was hell bent on invading Afghanistan and Iraq after the September 11th attack of 2001 (which baffled many "Why are we going after Iraq?").

http://archive.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/01/11/bush_began_iraq_plan_pre_911_oneill_says/
https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.co...-light-on-early-taliban-offers-pakistan-role/

You seriously think we had to provide PROOF to the TALIBAN regarding an international acknowledged murderer?
What, the, fuck?

 

[Madmick]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/24/world/asia/afghanistan-civilian-casualties-united-nations.html

KABUL, Afghanistan — For the first time since the United Nations began documenting civilian casualties in Afghanistan a decade ago, more civilians are being killed by Afghan government and American forces than by the Taliban and other insurgents, according to a report on Wednesday.

Civilian deaths attributed to pro-government forces rose in the first quarter of this year even as overall civilian casualties dropped to their lowest level in that period since 2013.

————————————————

Figures are from the UN and for 2019 only.

LOL, now the UN is conflating US kills with local government kills. The Afghan forces are deeply infiltrated by terrorists and other radical Islamics. They're responsible for their own casualties, and any casualties resulting from American airstrikes on their people are also a buck that stops with them.

The United Nations said in its quarterly report that pro-government forces were responsible for 53 percent of civilian deaths. But insurgents were responsible for the majority — 54 percent — of all civilian casualties, which include deaths and injuries, even though the number of suicide bombings decreased compared with the same period in 2018, the report said.

BTW, most of these citizens killed by the Taliban were the targeted deliberately by suicide bombs. How many of the civilian deaths caused by Americans were intentional, and not collateral?

Yes, this matters.

Why? Because the USA doesn't descend from the hills to lock a bunch of girls in their school before burning it to the ground. That has to be stopped. Ergo, any civilians killed, usually because they are used as human shields by these cowards, can also logically be attributed to them, and not to Americans or Afghanis who mistakenly kill them as collateral in the fight.

 

[m25105]

You seriously think we had to provide PROOF to the TALIBAN regarding an international acknowledged murderer?
What, the, fuck?

Yes. I do.

 

[cincymma79]

None of these freedom bombers will answer that

It is a shame we are getting in the way of them buttfucking little boys as a hobby and stoning women for getting raped. That’s the true war crime here.

 

[ObamaPhoneLady]

I see both sides of the issue, but favor the side that isn't creating terrorists to fuck up my country.

The fact this is somehow a controversial position just shows how far gone some people are at this point.

 

[Happy Man]

I was actually just about to post this earlier.

Another recent finding from Amnesty highlighted that over 1.600 civilians were killed as a result of the US-led coalition against Raqqa in Syria.

"A newly released report charges that the US-led coalition killed more than 1,600 civilians in Raqqa over the course of several months in 2017 during its campaign to eradicate ISIS from the Syrian city.

Report: US-led coalition killed 1,600 civilians in Raqqa in 2017
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/25/politics/amnesty-international-report-raqqa/index.html
"A newly released report charges that the US-led coalition killed more than 1,600 civilians in Raqqa over the course of several months in 2017 during its campaign to eradicate ISIS from the Syrian city.

The report, released Thursday by Amnesty International and Airwars, found that US, UK and French airstrikes and US artillery strikes killed or injured thousands of civilians from June to October 2017.
A coalition analysis of civilian casualties does not match the report's findings.
"Many of the cases documented by Amnesty International likely amount to violations of international humanitarian law and warrant further investigation," the report states."

https://raqqa.amnesty.org/
As per the Anmnesty report, the coalition fired 30.000 artillery shells during a period of 5 months, which is more than any other battalion since the Vietnam war. They fired indiscriminately, targeting entire neighborhoods. All this while the following sentiments were given to the public:

"I challenge anyone to find a more precise air campaign in the history of warfare…The Coalition's goal is always for zero human casualties" - Former Defence Secretary" - General James Mattis

More from the report:
"The Coalition launched strikes likely to cause excessive harm to civilians and failed to distinguish between military targets and civilians.

Such conduct violates the principles of distinction and proportionality - fundamental requirements of international humanitarian law. Disproportionate or indiscriminate attacks are war crimes.

Urban combat poses inherent challenges. These were exacerbated in Raqqa because IS used human shields, but the Coalition was well aware of these tactics long before the battle.

During its offensive, the Coalition failed to take into account that civilians were present in every neighbourhood. Had Coalition forces carried out adequate surveillance before launching their strikes many civilian lives could have been spared."

Where is the outcry for this? In line with the arguments made in the Sri Lanka thread.

The numbers they have for Raqqa seem incredibly low.

Official numbers are always low. This report is padding for the US.

This article, and how I remember it in real time back then, paints the ugly picture.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/556466/

However these Sunnis helped genocide their neighbors, enslaved them, and rape their children. That’s what you get for joining the Saudi/Turkish/isreali backed ISIS.

 

[Happy Man]

This idea that the U.S. indiscriminately drops bombs regardless of the risk of human casualties is a tiresome and stupid talking point. If the U.S. truly didn't care about civilian casualties, then the war in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria would've been over in about a week. The most powerful military force in Earth's history wouldn't be bogged down for 15 years in a war against people with few tanks and no planes.

Civilian casualties are horrible. I've seen the videos and the pictures and I can't even imagine that world. I feel so blessed to live in America. War is hell. Civilian casualties are part of it. No, that doesn't make it acceptable but you are dealing with people who *use civilians as human shields* for Christ's sake. They don't have tanks and planes. What they do have is a disregard for human life. They know the building they're in will get blown to pieces so they pack it with women and children to get blown to pieces too. In this day and age, with a media that is all too eager to trash the military, they have their effective propaganda.

No, the U.S. does not indiscriminately bomb civilians. I believe they do as much surveillance as possible but they can only do so much. They are not dealing with an enemy that follows any rules, has any accountability, or obeys the Geneva convention. It's just plain ugly. If there's one thing that really sold me on Obama back in 2008, early in the Democratic primary the candidates were asked if they would authorize a strike despite knowing there may be civilian casualties. Obama reluctantly, but surely, raised his hand. That was a fucking ballsy ass thing to do and I respect him for that.

I kinda agree. M

But we literally bombed every building in Raqqa and Mosul. Bc ISIS didn’t let the people leave and put up a monstrously savage defense.

It was the only way or more Iraqi Shia and more Kurds would be dead.

I tell the Sunni tribes,..... stop following ISIS and al qaeda.

I think the sheiks finally got the hint. The people are fed up. The tribes are devastated and there is nothing to show for it.

 

[gatchaman]

I'm not saying it's alright.
I'm saying there are reasons and other ways to see the same set of circumstances.
Kissinger is indeed worthy of condemnation but you're shooting with a sawed off here.

Speaking of holding others to standards one doesn't have for themselves, what country are you from?

Excuse my interjection, but would it be okay with you for the Vietnamese to bomb the United States to kill Kissinger if the United States refused to hand him over?

Nixon: We've got to quit thinking in terms of a three-day strike [in the Hanoi-Haiphong area]. We've got to be thinking in terms of an all-out bombing attack - which will continue until they - Now by all-out bombing attack, I am thinking about things that go far beyond. I'm thinking of the dikes, I'm thinking of the railroad, I'm thinking, of course, the docks.
Kissinger: I agree with you.
President Nixon: We've got to use massive force.
Two hours later at noon, H. R. Haldeman and Ron Ziegler joined Kissinger and Nixon:
President: How many did we kill in Laos?
Ziegler: Maybe ten thousand - fifteen?
Kissinger: In the Laotian thing, we killed about ten, fifteen.
President: See, the attack in the North that we have in mind, power plants, whatever's left - POL [petroleum], the docks. And, I still think we ought to take the dikes out now. Will that drown people?
Kissinger: About two hundred thousand people.
President: No, no, no, I'd rather use the nuclear bomb. Have you got that, Henry?
Kissinger: That, I think, would just be too much.
President: The nuclear bomb, does that bother you?...I just want you to think big, Henry, for Christsakes.

 

[Sano]

The numbers they have for Raqqa seem incredibly low.

Official numbers are always low. This report is padding for the US.

This article, and how I remember it in real time back then, paints the ugly picture.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/556466/

However these Sunnis helped genocide their neighbors, enslaved them, and rape their children. That’s what you get for joining the Saudi/Turkish/isreali backed ISIS.

As far as I can tell the 1600 number is civilians stricly killed by the US-coalition. The total civilian death toll from all parties involved is much higher as you point out.

However, the coalition officially only admitted to killing a little over a hundred civilians. From the report:

"The Coalition has admitted killing 159 civilians in Raqqa – barely 10% of the real number, without conducting investigations or interviewing survivors and witnesses in Raqqa"

Excuse my interjection, but would it be okay with you for the Vietnamese to bomb the United States to kill Kissinger if the United States refused to hand him over?

Nixon: We've got to quit thinking in terms of a three-day strike [in the Hanoi-Haiphong area]. We've got to be thinking in terms of an all-out bombing attack - which will continue until they - Now by all-out bombing attack, I am thinking about things that go far beyond. I'm thinking of the dikes, I'm thinking of the railroad, I'm thinking, of course, the docks.
Kissinger: I agree with you.
President Nixon: We've got to use massive force.
Two hours later at noon, H. R. Haldeman and Ron Ziegler joined Kissinger and Nixon:
President: How many did we kill in Laos?
Ziegler: Maybe ten thousand - fifteen?
Kissinger: In the Laotian thing, we killed about ten, fifteen.
President: See, the attack in the North that we have in mind, power plants, whatever's left - POL [petroleum], the docks. And, I still think we ought to take the dikes out now. Will that drown people?
Kissinger: About two hundred thousand people.
President: No, no, no, I'd rather use the nuclear bomb. Have you got that, Henry?
Kissinger: That, I think, would just be too much.
President: The nuclear bomb, does that bother you?...I just want you to think big, Henry, for Christsakes.

That's fucking scary.

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

Yes. I do.

It's a ludicrous expectation.

 

[berimBOWLoh]

You seriously think we had to provide PROOF to the TALIBAN regarding an international acknowledged murderer?
What, the, fuck?

Taliban was a recognized government. Do you think another country can just take an American citizen without proof to the government of wrong doing? Just snatch him up or threaten to bomb them? This is normal diplomacy to you ?