Afghans' anger over US bombings

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by finknottle, Jun 1, 2007.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Their at it again.

    Her son Mohammad and his wife Khwara sat next to her - they were mourning the death of their 18-year-old son and her brother.

    Both were among 57 killed - almost half of them women and children - when American forces bombed their village in Shindand, western Afghanistan, and destroyed 100 homes.

    "The bombardments were going on day and night," said Mohammad Zarif Achakzai, who had to flee their mud house in the Zerkoh Valley.

    "Those who tried to get out somewhere safe were being bombed. They didn't care if it was women, children or old men."
    courtesy BBC News.

    How can we ever hope to win the hearts and minds of the ordinary Afghan when the US forces are constantly killing innocent civilians? It appears that they do not have the soldiering skills to winkle out any resistance using ground troops but would rather drop 2000lb bombs on mud huts in the hope that they may get a baddie or two and if innocent men, women and children are killed then tough.

    Full story here:
  2. However, it is the BBC!!! I dont deny that horrible things happen in war, but it is never ever clear black and white. Why was there bombardments? How do we know this actual happened, and the bombing was by the US? We must be very very careful not to just believe all that is written as the gospel truth, particularly from the BBC.
  3. This would be the very same women and children that allow their houses to be used as sniping points, rallying points and safe havens then would it? :roll:

    I'm sorry mate, but a very good friend of mine has not long come back from there (after coming home injured and going back out!) and has been telling me about the effing mare that clearing out areas of housing is. If bombing saves the lives of our troops, then its good enough for me.

    And that too :)
  4. If you pal has just returned with 3Cdo Brigade then you will know that the Brits do not call up air strikes if civilians are in close proximity.
  5. I never suggested that they did.
  6. The article goes on to state: .... it was only after the villagers were angered by culturally insensitive house searches that they picked up guns and took on the American military machine.

    Sure two wrongs don't make a right but the Americans just never learn. Comments from Lamri on his mate aside, I spent my time in the sandpit and we took almost daily thumpings from the locals, much of which was in apparent retalliation to the wonderful way in which the americans handled the locals.

    Contraversial perhaps, but truth be told, if they came into my home like that I'd be a little pissed off too.

  7. Honestly, i don't know why this sort of stuff keeps happening to us. I was always taught never to aim at something i couldn't see.

  8. The problem in Afghanistan seems to be primarly with US Special Forces who seem to have a SOFLAM and be damned attitude to any contacts.
  9. I concur.

    My point is and maybe I did not make myself clear on that score, is that the hearts and minds war is lost in Iraq and if US forces in Afghanistan continue to use disproportionate force and walk roughshod over Afghan traditions and culture the same will happen there, undoing all the good work done with the locals by our forces in the southern provinces.
  10. Maybe one of our American members can put me right if I err, but I always get the impression that US forces cannot or will not differentiate between enemy and innocents (caught up in conflict) until AFTER the conflict is over, when they throw money around trying to buy hearts and minds, where as UK forces try their hardest to make the innocents feel safe from unwarranted attack. I mean no disrespect to the US forces by saying that, I have no idea whatsoever how hard it must be.

  11. And ours in Kandahar[​IMG]
  12. We're taught to never fire on civilians unless under fire, and sometimes not even then.

    Of course, if our ROE specifies return fire when fired on, that person IS going to die.

    THe major differentiation is that US troops are combat troops, pure and simple. we're not trained to riot actions due to the posse comitatus act, and thus, US troops are not trained extensively in tactics where the person at the other end is alive at the end.

    Maybe thats the problem. I dunno

    for reference, here's the wikipedia
  13. wet_blobby

    wet_blobby War Hero Moderator

    Jars, we're combat troops as well. do you remember the phrase "coming under effective enemy fire"? Mate, I'm not going to knock you because I view you as a friend.

    Showing restraint can be just as effective as going in all guns blazing. We live and learn, I just hope and pray for the saftey of those in harms way.

    They are in a quaqmire of shite built by politicians who can say " I fcuked up....sorry I'm gone"........quality reasurances for the poor bloody infantry.

    I can see a fair few politicians getting topped in the next 25 years.........

    respect jars.
  14. i apologize blobbs, my brother, if i offended. i did not mean that UK troops were not combat troops.

    What i was trying to imply that with the troubles, the UK gained an institutional memory in their military that we in the US lack.

    I don't understand why some of our people forget that "you get more with honey than with vinegar", considering that most US military bases are in the south (where the term originated) and that the officer corps of the US military is mostly staffed by southerners. I truly, truly do not know.

    What I do know is that most veterans hear of incidents like that and scratch our heads about it because we would never do such a thing or condone its happening.
  15. They should have taken their recognition panels in.
  16. G'day all

    About this indiscriminate bombing by the USA in this region of Afghanistan.

    When the US general took over from the British general who had come to some agreement with the Taliban in this region, that the Taliban, hadn't ''t attack the soldiers or the civilian personnel in the last 6 month period and so allow the Australian Engineers to carry on with their re- construction of, roads schools and other buildings. At the turn over speech he stated that the British General hadn't done the job he had been sent there to do, and by coming to an agreement with the Taliban" the General had in fact committed " TREASON" and that his job was to enialte all the Taliban fighters, and that any agreement was off, and the fighting was going to continue as they has before the UK general had come in there.

    The reason I know this sis my son-on laws oppo, was the RSM doing the roads and building in this region and it has been relatively quite, since the UK general had come to some sort of peace negotiations with theTaliban Chiefs in th region, my son in -law, is taking over from his mate for the next six months, and he was warned by his best mate, that this actually was going to happen and sure enough, when the clever UK general had gone, the USA started their indiscriminate bombing again, last report back from there was that now, yo can see the hatred of all the people against the Aussie Troops and their building campaign is sometimes almost at a stop through fighting the Taliban who had previously encouraged them into this region to build it up and help the people.

    To me it seems that this guy has come from the same school as "Paton" who believes that the only good enemy is a dead one, at the end he got his comeuppance and was withdrawn from the front after many mistreatment of soldiers he thought were malingerers, finally hitting the injured soldier with one of his pearl handled colt revolvers.

    Not before he had , through his brutish way of dealing with his forces, had killed hundreds off troops needlessly. This new Guy seems the same Gunge Ho type as Paton, who only sees one way to win the battle, never mind how many are killed and maimed, as long as he gains the victory, and will when he returns to the USA, run for Congress over the dead bodies of half the Us soldiers under his control..
    This way has to stop or there will never be piece in this conflict as there still isn't peace, in all the conflicts that they have ever been in.

    pinngbosun :threaten: :threaten: :threaten: :threaten: :threaten:

Share This Page