"War is deceit" - Muhammad (Bukhari 4.52.267)
By Chris Brummitt for the Associated Press:
KABUL, Afghanistan - The U.S.-led coalition in Afghanistan accused Taliban militants Monday of falsely reporting civilian casualties to discredit Afghan and international forces. Six insurgents and two foreign soldiers, meanwhile, were killed in fresh fighting.
The U.S.-led coalition made the claim Monday after Afghan elders alleged that up to 18 civilians were killed late Sunday by coalition troops in Helmand province, a Taliban stronghold.
Capt. Vanessa R. Bowman, a coalition spokeswoman, said credible intelligence suggested the claims were fabricated as part of a propaganda war. "The insurgents continue to follow their pattern of falsely reporting civilian casualties," she said.
NATO-led forces, whose operations in Helmand are being supported by U.S.-led coalition troops and aircraft, insist that no noncombatants were killed in the fighting. The claims could not be independently verified due to the remoteness of the area where the clash took place.
Reports of civilian casualties at the hands of foreign forces are highly sensitive in Afghanistan. President Hamid Karzai has repeatedly deplored such deaths, saying they undermine efforts to win the trust of the people.
I almost fell over on my chair when I read this article. Is NATO getting a clue? I am afraid to say 'maybe' because I am afraid that I will read an article that has the complete opposite sort of 'awakening' tomorrow, or the next day.
While coalition troops attempt to limit deaths of non-combatants, some "civilian" deaths will be inevitable. The tribal nature of Afghan society makes discerning "civilians" in a guerilla war extremely difficult. Sort of OT - Just screened the film, "Battle of Algiers" for a class of police officers over the weekend. For a movie that is 40 years old, it has stood the test of time, and proved very instructive. If you have never seen it, check it out.
"Reports of civilian casualties at the hands of foreign forces are highly sensitive in Afghanistan."
...and civilian casualties at the hands of the Muslim taliban routinely are routinely accepted as acceptable under Islam....
Ban Muslim immigration...
Reports of civilian casualties at the hands of foreign forces are highly sensitive in Afghanistan.
And this is why the taliban (along with all of the other muslim fighters in the world) choose to use civilians as human shields. The deaths mean no more to them than propaganda fodder.
The Taliban is fibbing?
Well, it's okay if you are fibbing to the infidels. I'm sure they tell their Islamic brothers and sisters the truth.
Taliban keep using 'human shields' and hide between women & children...
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=46605
http://www.afgha.com/?q=node/3506
AFP - the Sweden ambassador to Iran, Mrs Gunilla von Bahr, met today her iranian counterpart because Teheran had decided to blame Sweden for a cartoon published in a swedish paper where Muhammad was drawn standing with a dog's body.
The story just showed up. Updates available soon.
Be ready for the second episode of Muhammad's cartoons global jihad.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1887253/posts
I have my doubts that US leadership (at any level) has as of yet attuned itself to Islam's jihad strategy of taqiyya.
I still wonder if westerners in general will ever get over their inclination to believe that not everyone thinks the way they do--especially when it comes to dealing with Islamic adversaries.
"War is deceit" - Muhammed
"War is hell."- Gen W.T. Sherman (It's way past time we taught the Islamo-nazi's this very important fact.)
...just wait until the Afghanistanians realize the Taliban are the foreign forces...
exsgtbrown:
That's a trifle unlikely.
Under Islamic doctrine all Muslims belong to a single nation, the 'ummah'. No other form of sovereignty outside of the 'ummah' is accepted in Islam and no other government or legal system is permissible except that taught by the Kuran. Under the Islamic rule of Hamid Karzai, Afghanistan has adopted Islamic law or shari'a't (which the Taliban had been attempting to establish there anyway) into its constitution.
Therefore, to the traditionally staunchly Islamic Afghanis the Taliban are NOT foreign invaders (which they otherwise might well be regarded as). To the Afghanis, the Taliban are simply other Muslims (except maybe a lttle crankier than usual).
perhaps NATO can pass that on to Olmert, the EU, UN, most liberal politicians as well as most politians.. islamists lie like rugs.
... islamists lie like rugs.
No, Moslems do.
well taliban has learned the lessons the nasties talk about propaganda and the big lie unfortunately their brothers in their cult believe what they say and do not believe the truth about what has really happened because people telling the truth are infidels in their eyes and of course good Muslims would never lie to each other and you believe that I'll sell you the CN Tower for a dollar
"NATO: Taliban making false accusations"
Sounds like NATO is accusing the Taliban of playing dirty. I suppose NATO officials think that the Taliban is going to shape up and fly right now that they've been exposed as liers.
It's as if the allies accused Hitler of being less than honest, while all the while he was shipping millions of people to the gas chambers of Eastern Europe.
How are we supposed to win against an evil organization like the Taliban when our leaders can't think of anything more to accuse them of than lieing?
‘Limited war’ is a self-inflicting-wound when fighting these barbarians who hide behind women and children, human shields at their attack positions. This ‘limited’ strategy must be called off, it is demoralizing to our fighting men and women who face the enemy. In its place should be announced ‘full war’ with acceptable high casualties of the enemy, NOT our troops. This should be made clear, that if the enemy wants to use human shields, they will do so at a high cost to themselves. By using the confusing strategy of ‘limited warfare’ we are sending the enemy wrong signals, which they will exploit to make us feel bad that at times civilian casualties result. If we declare ‘full warfare’ their ability to exploit casualties become meaningless, because we declared full scale war. If they continue to put women and children into the front lines to protect their own lice ridden asses with human shields, make them understand they will suffer large losses. We deserve better for out side, and they deserve worse for theirs. ‘Full deadly war’ is all they will understand. Patton would have understood.
All's fair in love and war...ok cancel the love part...all's fair in war...do we really expect jihadists, Taliban or other, to adhere to any rules of conduct whatsoever. If you need to lie, do it, if you nead to cheat, do it. If you need to steal, do it. If you need to use an infant as a shield, do it. The only thing of value is jihad. Fighting in Allahs cause. Good ole Allah, you remember him don't you?
'ALL'S FAIR IN LOVE AND WAR.'
Have just read Opium Report from U.N-see Helmand
Province has a record crop where farmers know that if they give a 'cut' to Taliban they will be left alone & make some money whilst drugs flood Europe-weakening Infidels & funding weapons for Taliban in vicious cycle of no win situation for NATO.
Sorry folks-mean exactly what I say-Afghanistan can no more be WON than Iraq. Consider the logistics-Pakistan has a huge population of impoverished people ready to 'die for Allah' whilst NATO forces are a pimple on an elephant's bum by comparison. One of few things Muslims seem
successful at doing is breeding-they are constantly replenishing themselves which you couldn't say for NATO whose 'allies' show great reluctance to engage directly with Taleban apart from U.S & British troops-latter at risk with shoddy equipment,no air backup apart from American because Gordon Brown & his cronies favour WAR ON A BUDGET meaning soldiers are expendable not like themselves[i.e Politicians].
Certainly British soldiers are asking themselves
why the Hell are they in Afghanistan[or Iraq]??
No soldier fights well for a cause they don't believe in & morale has hit an alltime LOW.
Also credibility is at stake-not so long ago the
same Taliban were promoted as 'brave Warriors fighting the Commies' funded & armed by good ol'
U.S & Britain where Maggie Thatcher had these dour,unsmiling,stone age warriors flown to Scotland & taught how to use most lethal modern weapons...
Perhaps after U.S [& Britain] are defeated in Iraq & 'grateful' Afghanistan they will learn some lessons,etched in the blood & deaths of their soldiers.
Also,by then, like Rome the 'centurions' will all
be needed to defend the Homefront.
The substance of the article is reasonable enough. But there is something about the tone that irks me.
For example, the lead paragraph:
Am I missing something? Is there some mystical and magical relationship between the first and second sentences?
... "meanwhile"? What do they mean "meanwhile"? Were those guys killed while a reporter was actually talking to coalition representatives? Was there a reporter involved at all? Was this all written from press releases?
Is this incoherence? Mood-music? What?
But let's consider just the first sentence:
"accused"? ... Huh? Is the matter in doubt?
Is exaggerating, even lying about the evils of the enemy somehow atypical of warfare? Is this the first time anybody has engaged in propaganda?
Is it somehow atypical of the Taliban? Are those guys known for their candor and honesty?
What's up?
Is there somebody over at AP who knows that we're in a war?
Is there anybody over there that ever took a history course?
Have they listened to the news for the last couple of years?
Have any of them graduated high school, or even passed high school English?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Battle of Tours,
After WW2, something happened in the command structure that is preventing total war, and true victory, from taking place.
Is it the liberals? Fear of being branded a civilian-killing murderer by the left-wing press and the left? Following some insane idea of world leadership from the UN? I shudder to think of the outcome of WW2 if we had fought it the same way we're doing now.
I hate that civilians were inadvertently killed while we bombed the hell out of the Germans and the Japanese, but in the end THAT significantly contributed to bringing the war to a final, conclusive, end. The firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo; nuking Nagasaki and Hiroshima all worked towards that end. The enemy's military was willing to continue fighting, but the average citizen could bear no more. Their war effort collapsed because it's foundation was destroyed.
If the civilian population that actively, or passively, is supporting the enemy is not made to seriously suffer, then there is no reason for the enemy to stop fighting. Especially now, stooges can be found and sent in to battle from remote areas and the people calling the shots and supporting the effort suffer little. As Sherman and Grant taught my people in the 1860's, you have to take the war to the people if you want to win. Total warfare, nothing less is acceptable.
The 'leadership' is putting a unbelieveable burden on our fighting men and women. I really thought that after 9/11 the gloves would come off and the horrible games we've played since Korea would end- I guess I was wrong.
God bless our troops!
God help our leadership.
NATO refers to "noncombatants" while the Taliban refers to "civilians".
How does the Taliban define someone as a civilian?
While there may be some overlap, surely there are many civilians that cannot be classified as non-combatants.
How does the Taliban define someone as a civilian?
Anyone woman or child that they can hide behind during the fighting. Everyone else is a soldier of allah (piss be upon him).
The Taliban making false accusations.. NOOO.. who would EVER imagine that!
...and civilian casualties at the hands of the Muslim taliban routinely are routinely accepted as acceptable under Islam....
Ban Muslim immigration...
Posted by: exsgtbrown
Ditto! Nothing more needs to be said!
Except.. if they say we're targeting civilians anyway.. hmmmm... then they can't say anything if we remove the ROE which our troops are operating under.
walterc,
Don't "soldiers of Allah" become "civilians" after a NATO bombing? They're not part of an organized force. Alive, they're soldiers of Allah. Dead, they're "villagers defending their homes". They may be considered warriors by Islam but, for propaganda purposes, they're added to the list of "civilian" casualties. After all, the UN and the press will just eat this stuff up. It's the story they all hunger for. No one will question the figures or how they were arrived at.
Aren't even the women and children expected to do their bit for Allah? They're not protected in Islam, if Iran's use of its own children to clear minefields or the female suicide bombers in the West Bank are any guide.
Who the hell cares what the damned enemy says?
I only want to hear their final silence.
And the threnody of flies.
Buzzing their graves.
The U.S.-led coalition in Afghanistan accused Taliban militants Monday of falsely reporting civilian casualties to discredit Afghan and international forces. Six insurgents and two foreign soldiers, meanwhile, were killed in fresh fighting.
The U.S.-led coalition made the claim Monday after Afghan elders alleged that up to 18 civilians were killed late Sunday blah,blah..
So.Are they Elders or Militants?Hmmm...
Capt. Vanessa R. Bowman, a coalition spokeswoman, said credible intelligence suggested the claims were fabricated as part of a propaganda war. "The insurgents continue to follow their pattern of falsely reporting civilian casualties," she said.
If the intel is credible lets have it!I guess AP had to keep it boiled down since the dish out this crap based on size and not content.
Now Gramps is an insurgent!Hmmm...
NATO-led forces, whose operations in Helmand are being supported by U.S.-led coalition troops and aircraft, insist that no noncombatants were killed in the fighting. The claims could not be independently verified due to the remoteness of the area where the clash took place.
Note the dismissive,superior tone.This thing makes as much sense as a horoscope.
Reports of civilian casualties at the hands of foreign forces are highly sensitive in Afghanistan. President Hamid Karzai has repeatedly deplored such deaths, saying they undermine efforts to win the trust of the people.
Oh!So there were some deaths!No?Yes?
Thanks for clearing that up Chris!
AP SUCKS!
walterc:
... allah (piss be upon him)
I'm still laughing.
livefreeordie: The 'leadership' is putting a unbelieveable burden on our fighting men and women. I really thought that after 9/11 the gloves would come off and the horrible games we've played since Korea would end- I guess I was wrong.
The idea of limited warfare goes hand in glove with the idea of multiculturalism, both are bad ideas. While multiculturalism implies that if we dialogue long enough we will come to some sort of understanding, limited warfare is there to stall for time, which is down right criminal. What had the stalemate in Korea brought us? Are we talking half a century later? What had Vietnam brought? People suffered for what, died for what? This is the tragedy of limited warfare, as a tool of multiculturalism, that it creates needless suffering and death, and social stupidity. We can no more reason with an ideology of slavery than we can talking to a rock about the values of freedom. Dialogue and limited warfare end up causing more harm than good, both to the civilian populations caught in foolish war as well as the soldier whose job it is to fight within limits.
Limited warfare is a badly thought out idea, and it is in the end more cruel than total warfare which brings victory, unconditional surrender of the enemy, and ultimately a chance for rebuilding a society based on freedom rather than slavery. If we keep at it long enough in Afghanistan and Iraq with a limited war, the people will suffer more rather than less, and freedom will have as much chance coming as in North Korea. In the end, this stalemate policy is a dead end. Better to win conclusively, even if it means brutal tactics of war, because war is brutal and there is no way to make it nice. The Islamics jihadists attack, we fight them, and kill them as needed, totally. That brings victory, their total capitulation, and new beginnings. Limited war can never eradicate slavery, only total victory will. We learned this the hard way with our American war between the states. We should not have to battle over slavery again, yet the jihadists are making us do that all over again. We must win this, or it will never end. Human freedoms are far more precious than some immaturely silly multiculturalist limited warfare idea of mythical dialogue. It is stupid, and criminal, and worse it encourages the enemy to think their enslaving ideology of their primitive desert pagan god allah have a chance. They don't.
Given the enemy is eager to die for their pagan god allah, then let them have it, and good riddance to bad garbage. Next time we enter Moslem lands with war, we had better be prepared to do what needs doing, and killing with full force, or else stay the hell out. Moslems who support jihad should be put on notice that next time we will NOT play the multicultural game of limited war, but full scale war. If they want death, they will have it. But for now, pull out of Iraq, and Afghanistan, let them settle it amongst themselves. They will do the killing for us, because this is all they are good at, and there is no way to make it dialogue like nice. War is hell.
What Muslims tell LIES!!!!!!! well I am absolutely flabbergasted LOL.