Afghanistan

[Vertigo 7]

I think you missed the point I was trying to make. The damage I saw in the photos could not have been caused by the missile alone, or a fire from the vehicle.

Oh and ya know what magically didn't happen after the drone strike? A repeat of the 160+ dead from a few days prior from other suicide bombers. But that doesn't matter, does it? No no, lets just make sure the US is the bad guy no matter who does what, right?

[BaronVerde]

[...] The damage I saw in the photos could not have been caused by the missile alone, or a fire from the vehicle.[...]

The damage is perfectly explained by the missile alone and no secondary explosion, actually, a secondary explosion is excluded because there is no structural damage to the buildings or bulged metal in the doors of the driveway (taken from the linked text which is worth reading).

Edit: damage examination:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investig ... questions/

And a more recent writeup:
https://www.inquirer.com/opinion/us-dro ... 10912.html


It does matter who does what, that's the point. There were no islamic terrorists involved. But even had there been any, a simple warning would have sufficed if the US really had observed them for hours, which is being questioned.

To me there's a question of morale here. Do I kill everything that makes subjectively suspicious moves or to please my commander (that's American), or do I watch until I have a picture of what's going on. Drone warfare may make it easier to kill people because of the distance, physically and mentally. I always hope for the best and that we get a relativating comment from those repsonsible. They've already admitted that civilians are among the victims. But as previous cases show, it may just be swept under the carpet.

[clakclak]

[...]

Oh and ya know what magically didn't happen after the drone strike? A repeat of the 160+ dead from a few days prior from other suicide bombers. [...]

Unless we can say for a fact that there was a bomb in that car there is no causality here.

To quote something that was said in regards to another bold lie told by the US government to justify military action: Excuse me, I am not convinced.

[BaronVerde]

I had that situation in mind as well. That and the refusal of Fischer's boss Schroeder to participate in the "coalition of the willing".

That was the former German foreign minister Joschka Fischer rebuking former US defense minister Donald Rumsfeld who was lying to the world about a threat from Iraq and trying to find allies to shift cost and responsibility. Rumsfeld was one driving force of both the US invasion of Iraq as well as Afghanistan. He also frequently used the term "collateral damage" as a euphemism for the killing of innocent people, though the term itself is older, I believe goes back to the Vietnam war where also too many civilians died. But western, specifically US aggression are believed to be one of the drivers of islamic terrorism [citation needed, I know].

Interestingly, Fischer tells Rumsfeld in German that if they go to war, they must stay there indefinitely. That was a prophecy.

I just love to debate It may be worth researching independently to which degree groups like the Taliban and of course other militants may have emerged because of foreign aggression or, equally important, because they were supported and geared up by foreign powers because at one point in time they were assumed to support their respective case. The (speculation) result may be that the current precarious situation for the Afghan people is a direct outcome of foreign influence and aggression.

[Vertigo 7]

And still the US military is saying they struck a terrorist target and there was a 2ndary explosion. You're pretty quick to call the US military a liar, you don't think it's within the realm of possibility that the people are lying to discredit the US? That they were harboring ISIS militants? In a country that's known to do just that, no less... again, he said, she said. You wanna believe them, fine. Until I see more than opinions of journalists, I'm going to continue to believe the US killed a terrorist and ended a threat that would have killed many.

[matthewfarmery]

And still the US military is saying they struck a terrorist target and there was a 2ndary explosion. You're pretty quick to call the US military a liar, you don't think it's within the realm of possibility that the people are lying to discredit the US? That they were harboring ISIS militants? In a country that's known to do just that, no less... again, he said, she said. You wanna believe them, fine. Until I see more than opinions of journalists, I'm going to continue to believe the US killed a terrorist and ended a threat that would have killed many.

While I would agree with you on that point, however, there has been many times that the US has made mistakes, and they are very good at doing friendly fire. In this instance, it could go either way, what if they were civilians? and the US are trying to whitewash the whole thing, to make them look good, and put them in the clear?

But on the other hand, maybe it was a terrorist target, and and the locals were trying to discredit the US. The problem is, without real first hand evidence, its hard to say who is right? But from my prospective, I'm not so inclined to believe the US military, and like I said, there been plenty of mistakes done by them over the years, so this could be another one.

But yes, its difficult to know who to believe.

[Alan Phipps]

Whatever the accuracy and timeliness of the targeting intelligence and any biases in reporting afterwards, I think it is almost certain that many complete innocents were involved in the effects of that strike and so that will overshadow any major congratulations about a military job well-done.

Whether direct blast/shrapnel or secondary explosion, 'acceptable' collateral damage or just plain error, the outcome is not limited to achievement of an intended military objective - and that may well be utilised to future advantage by the ISIS propaganda machine and that of their external supporters.

[Vertigo 7]

And that is very true. There's the real dirty not-so-secret of terrorist organizations. They kill whoever they want, they win. They get stopped but some civilians get caught in the cross fire, they play victim and they win.

A stand up fight is the last thing these folks want and that means a very good chance they'll be using civilians as human shields. This is not a new tactic. They're okay with dying. They're martyrs for the cause. What they're banking on is that no one will step up and try to stop them until it's too late, and if someone tries, oh well.. if they've convinced one person that the big evil US did bad, that's also acceptable.

[BaronVerde]

That's not what happened here, and I believe it not what @Alan wanted to say. It is also not reasonable to assume that a random house of an aid worker's family is filled with human shields. If you look at the map, there'd be thousands of houses to fill. It apparently is a crowded neighbourhood there.

Both, Washington Post and NY Times, independently report that this was an unprovoced strike that killed innocent people. And they said they actually had people there for examination of first hand sources, camera footage, and interviews, other than the military. This version is now also reflected in much of the independent press, even in the US.

Don't bet on the wrong horse too long.

I want to add, if someone uses humans as shields, there is still the other one that pulls the trigger. Even in cheap Hollywood movies the good guys retreat (or switch the phasers to stun ) when innocents are involved.

[Alan Phipps]

My point was that it almost doesn't matter which version of events is the factually correct one, and perhaps the majority of us may never know with total certainty.

It is the effects on the lives of those innocents closely involved and then the general perception and portrayal of the event as made by the influential players in the region that really matter now.

[BaronVerde]

I see.

Sure, there's a lot of clearing and processing, and I find there should be, as open and unbiased as possible.

I am inclined to trust the WP and NY Times to be able to judge the quality of their sources, and both aren't known for spreading misinformation. The third "writeup" I linked is certainly biased, they even say so. Maybe we get a more detailed statement from those who executed the strike.

--------------
As for Afghanistan, besides all the harassment that's going on from the Taliban to the population, it also seems to sink in that they need foreign collaboration to keep the country running. That might enable some external influence, speculatively to the better.

But if I knew the future I wouldn't hang around here

[Vertigo 7]

I want to add, if someone uses humans as shields, there is still the other one that pulls the trigger. Even in cheap Hollywood movies the good guys retreat (or switch the phasers to stun ) when innocents are involved.

You do get that if "the good guys retreat" the bad guys carry out their mission and kill even more innocent people than may be killed as an unintentional consequence otherwise, right? Life isn't a movie.

[clakclak]

I want to add, if someone uses humans as shields, there is still the other one that pulls the trigger. Even in cheap Hollywood movies the good guys retreat (or switch the phasers to stun ) when innocents are involved.

You do get that if "the good guys retreat" the bad guys carry out their mission and kill even more innocent people than may be killed as an unintentional consequence otherwise, right? Life isn't a movie.

Life isn't a movie, thus thinking in "good" and "bad" guys is to simple. There is more context here. Ali, the 16 year old who works for the Taliban to put food on the table for his mother and siblings after his father died is not the same person as Akhundzada and certainly not as bad a human.

An average American soldier doing his job is no Erik Prince making a large profit as long as the war continues.

At the end of the day, the moral question of military interventions is rarely ever as easily answered as it was during World War 2.

[BaronVerde]

There's a third independent report questioning the military version:
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/09/14/asia ... index.html
I personally am deeply convinced that as long as there is such rhetoric "to hunt people down and make them pay", there can hardly be peace. Somebody must put the gun back into the holster, verbally and quite literally.


Right in that area habitable space is shrinking due to climate change, those people are running into real problems and war mongering does not ease their lifes. For all good that the protective forces have done in the past, it has ended abruptly and there's danger of humanitarian catastrophe now.

I may be wrong and happy to discuss without getting personal. Has the OP abandoned the thread ?

[felter]

There is supposed to be a lot of in house fighting amongst the Taliban, there are even reports that their current leader has died recently. It seems to be that a lot of them are not happy with who is in their new Government, while a lot of them are not happy because that they are not in the new Government, with both sides saying we beat the Americans. Also, a lot of the ones who are in the Government are on international terrorist wanted lists, and are wanted in America for terror related crimes. What the Americans should do, is when the Taliban government do meet up, they should drop a few missiles down their throats and take them all out in one single action, solve a lot of problems for a lot of people.

[pjknibbs]

What the Americans should do, is when the Taliban government do meet up, they should drop a few missiles down their throats and take them all out in one single action, solve a lot of problems for a lot of people.

Yeah, because there are no possible negative consequences to launching a surprise attack on the official government of a country you're not at war with. Nosirree, can't see anything going wrong with that at all.

[felter]

What the Americans should do, is when the Taliban government do meet up, they should drop a few missiles down their throats and take them all out in one single action, solve a lot of problems for a lot of people.

Yeah, because there are no possible negative consequences to launching a surprise attack on the official government of a country you're not at war with. Nosirree, can't see anything going wrong with that at all.

When did anyone actually recognize the Taliban or any of the outlaw terrorists that consist of that so-called Government as an official Government, not just that no one has ever said they were at war with them or even for the matter that no one has ever said they weren't. Also, it is done all the time by Governments, including both America and the UK when the target is known Terrorists, so why is it any different this time. Then you also have to ask what will the consequences be by not doing it, if you leave terrorists to do whatever they want, eventually it will lead to another 911.

[pjknibbs]

You do realise that removing the existing power structure without any clear idea of what to replace it with is exactly what caused the current mess in the first place? You want to spend another 20 years in Afghanistan and lose another 2000+ US troops? Because doing what you just said is exactly how that happens.

[BaronVerde]

You do realise that removing the existing power structure without any clear idea of what to replace it with is exactly what caused the current mess in the first place?

This is my opinion, too.

[Vertigo 7]

General McKenzie, of US Cent Comm, held a press conference from the WH a short while ago, following the results of an investigation he launched shortly after the drone strike was ordered and has admitted the drone strike was a mistake and that civilians were the only ones killed in it. So there you have it.

Of course, there's much more to it than that. The strike wasn't launched as a cover, as has been expressed was the intent. The targeted vehicle did pickup passengers from a compound verified to be associated with ISIS and the intel gave rise to believing there was a credible and immediate threat to the airport, and that the targeted vehicle was likely the one that would have transported explosives and attackers. I can certainly understand why the strike occurred.

It's unfortunate that circumstances lead to where they did. I'm sorry for the families that lost their loved ones.