Afghan War Crimes. Civilians Deliberately Targeted

[M.Dancer]

Report reveals steep rise in Afghan civilian casualties

"The insurgents are increasingly committing war crimes, often by directly targeting civilians," Joanne Mariner, the terrorism and counterterrorism director at Human Rights Watch, said.

"Even when they're aiming at military targets, insurgent attacks are often so indiscriminate that Afghan civilians end up as the main victims."

The New York-based organisation said the Taliban had been targeting certain groups of civilians, including humanitarian aid workers, journalists, doctors, religious leaders and civilian government employees, condemning them as spies or collaborators.

The new report also revealed how attacks on Afghan teachers - especially in girls' schools - had doubled from already high levels in 2005, forcing hundreds of thousands of students out of classrooms.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/stor...usrc=rss&feed=1

[myata]

No doubt that targeting of civilans is a war crime - in our moral frame of reference. What's worth asking though, is whether there's reason or meaningful purpose in trying to apply standards created and developed in our part of the world to societies with absolutely different culture and the way of life. Should we continue to interfere, creating tensions that would and do result in loss of life (for us as well as the local polulation), or find another way of dealing with these societies?

I do not believe there's one simple answer to it, but this question should be asked before and at any time during any armed encounter with a different culture.

[ScottSA]

No doubt that targeting of civilans is a war crime - in our moral frame of reference. What's worth asking though, is whether there's reason or meaningful purpose in trying to apply standards created and developed in our part of the world to societies with absolutely different culture and the way of life. Should we continue to interfere, creating tensions that would and do result in loss of life (for us as well as the local polulation), or find another way of dealing with these societies?

I do not believe there's one simple answer to it, but this question should be asked before and at any time during any armed encounter with a different culture.

My culture believes we should pluck the eyeballs out of moral relativists. Is this cultural moray ok with you? When can you visit for your introduction to comparitive culture?

Utter hogwash. What other way should we find to "deal" with it? How about getting off the fence and saying that killing civilians is wrong, period. Who cares what their "culture" says about it? It's wrong. They are wrong.

[M.Dancer]

No doubt that targeting of civilans is a war crime - in our moral frame of reference. What's worth asking though, is whether there's reason or meaningful purpose in trying to apply standards created and developed in our part of the world to societies with absolutely different culture and the way of life. Should we continue to interfere, creating tensions that would and do result in loss of life (for us as well as the local polulation), or find another way of dealing with these societies?

I do not believe there's one simple answer to it, but this question should be asked before and at any time during any armed encounter with a different culture.

Your question has a loaded premise; that we are creating the tension. That would imply that if NATO left, the Taliban would cease trying to overthrow the Govt, killing teachers, beheading girls..etc etc....

Exactly the opposite is true. If we left the Taliban would have free reign to do what they liked, like targetting civilians....and, most probably re-open the head office of Al Qaeda inc.....

[rover1]

This story from Reuters, not widely reported, may have bearing on this topic:

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews....-AFGHAN-USA.xml

[M.Dancer]

This story from Reuters, not widely reported, may have bearing on this topic:

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews....-AFGHAN-USA.xml

Explain the correlation between Marines allegedly freaking out after an attack and the Taliban deliberately targeting civilians.....

[myata]

Your question has a loaded premise; that we are creating the tension.

We (in the broad sense of western influence in the region) had certainly created much tension, if one examines the recent history without prejudice. Starting with colonial domination, then creation of foreign

state on their land, then all the interference to keep oil coming. It's an unlikely pose to pretend pure innocence now.

That would imply that if NATO left, the Taliban would cease trying to overthrow the Govt, killing teachers, beheading girls..etc etc....

Taleban will do what they do in any case. And no, most likely they won't stop trying to overthrow the government. Why should they? Just because it was installed by the americans and so should be sacred? But if the government is really supported by population it would hold on without massive foreign propping.

If not, then all the money and efforts will go down the drain, eventually. As in all the previous attempts by foreign powers to control the area. Girls and teachers is sad (if true), but the question is, are we helping the situation in the big picture and in the long run, by creating this illusion of democracy and (our way of) civilization, which will last exactly as long as our troops are staying there.

Exactly the opposite is true. If we left the Taliban would have free reign to do what they liked, like targetting civilians....and, most probably re-open the head office of Al Qaeda inc.....

Last time they were in power, I can't recall them "targeting civilians", not anywhere near present scale. On the contrary, it was the only relatively stable time in x years of the country's recent history. AlKaeda presense was and would be a problem, for sure. A really smart way would be to first, understand and acknowledge what may have contributed to creating it in the first place, and then find a solution which would not create an even bigger problem in the future. Blasting the place away and then sitting with it, like with hot potato, without any clue what to do next doesn't appear to be one.

[M.Dancer]

Exactly the opposite is true. If we left the Taliban would have free reign to do what they liked, like targetting civilians....and, most probably re-open the head office of Al Qaeda inc.....

Last time they were in power, I can't recall them "targeting civilians", not anywhere near present scale. On the contrary, it was the only relatively stable time in x years of the country's recent history. AlKaeda presense was and would be a problem, for sure. A really smart way would be to first, understand and acknowledge what may have contributed to creating it in the first place, and then find a solution which would not create an even bigger problem in the future. Blasting the place away and then sitting with it, like with hot potato, without any clue what to do next doesn't appear to be one.

Your lackof memory on the subject, while regretable, is irrelevant.

[M.Dancer]

Your question has a loaded premise; that we are creating the tension.

We (in the broad sense of western influence in the region) had certainly created much tension, if one examines the recent history without prejudice. Starting with colonial domination, then creation of foreign

state on their land, then all the interference to keep oil coming. It's an unlikely pose to pretend pure innocence now.

The topic is Afghanistan. What you imagine to have happened elsewhere, while not applicable to afghanistan and while interesting, it is off topic and irrelevant.

[myata]

And how do you know what is relevant and what not? It's quite obvious that anti western sentiment is widespread in the region. It is contributing to the mishaps in Iraq and problems in Afganistan. It is strengthening authoritarian regime in Iran. Understanding why it is so could explain present failures - and prevent future ones.

[M.Dancer]

And how do you know what is relevant and what not? It's quite obvious that anti western sentiment is widespread in the region. It is contributing to the mishaps in Iraq and problems in Afganistan. It is strengthening authoritarian regime in Iran. Understanding why it is so could explain present failures - and prevent future ones.

Anti western sentiment and what you previously posted are two different things.

[ScottSA]

And how do you know what is relevant and what not? It's quite obvious that anti western sentiment is widespread in the region. It is contributing to the mishaps in Iraq and problems in Afganistan. It is strengthening authoritarian regime in Iran. Understanding why it is so could explain present failures - and prevent future ones.

You are making all the facts up to fit your theory. How is it "strengthening authoritarian regime in Iran"? No it's not. Nor is it, by all accounts, widespread in either Iraq or Afghanistan. Sure it gets the Taliban, the Baathists and al Queda all het up, but they aren't going to vote next election anyway, so who cares? Even the handpicked Iraqis Code Pink went to whine at don't want the US to leave. You're essentially taking the enemy's point of view and using it to claim no-one liks the US.

[myata]

Anti western sentiment and what you previously posted are two different things. + REPORTED

OK, you're bizzaire. And because you can't seem to make a reasonable argument, you'll be on my ignore list from this point on.

[myata]

You are making all the facts up to fit your theory. How is it "strengthening authoritarian regime in Iran"? No it's not. Nor is it, by all accounts, widespread in either Iraq or Afghanistan. Sure it gets the Taliban, the Baathists and al Queda all het up,

No, simply by comparing the state of affairs immediately before, and following the intervention.

Even the handpicked Iraqis Code Pink went to whine at don't want the US to leave. You're essentially taking the enemy's point of view and using it to claim no-one liks the US.

Even?... when all their lifehood is hanging on US staying there? What a mystery!

Now, if (nearly) everybody loved the US, why would they need 10s and 100s of thousands of their troops to (just barely) keep the place in order?

[M.Dancer]

Anti western sentiment and what you previously posted are two different things. + REPORTED

OK, you're bizzaire. And because you can't seem to make a reasonable argument, you'll be on my ignore list from this point on.

Promises.....

[Army Guy]

M.Dancer:

"The insurgents are increasingly committing war crimes, often by directly targeting civilians," Joanne Mariner, the terrorism and counterterrorism director at Human Rights Watch, said.

"Even when they're aiming at military targets, insurgent attacks are often so indiscriminate that Afghan civilians end up as the main victims."

The New York-based organisation said the Taliban had been targeting certain groups of civilians, including humanitarian aid workers, journalists, doctors, religious leaders and civilian government employees, condemning them as spies or collaborators.

This info should not come as a surprise nor is it new info. NATO has clearly stated it's intentions during it's operations in Afgan, and the Taliban are trying to undermine them by attacking those accomplishments...

Are they commiting war crimes, according to the genva convention they are , but then again they did not sign it, nor do they abide by it.

The only surprise is that this group is actually pionting it out for the rest of the world to see, most of the time they spend researching accounts of abuses done by the west, like US prisons, prisoner abuse etc...

[M.Dancer]

M.Dancer:

The only surprise is that this group is actually pionting it out for the rest of the world to see, most of the time they spend researching accounts of abuses done by the west, like US prisons, prisoner abuse etc...

My thoughts exactly. It must have left a bitter taste in their mouths. Even so, the lengths that people like Myata go to justify the war crimes, it's like they are living in denial and Mullah Omar is not a terrorist but really Simone Bolivar gallantly fighting to free the peasants from the cruel tyranny of Spain....

[Army Guy]

Myata:

No doubt that targeting of civilans is a war crime - in our moral frame of reference. What's worth asking though, is whether there's reason or meaningful purpose in trying to apply standards created and developed in our part of the world to societies with absolutely different culture and the way of life. Should we continue to interfere, creating tensions that would and do result in loss of life (for us as well as the local polulation), or find another way of dealing with these societies?

I do not believe there's one simple answer to it, but this question should be asked before and at any time during any armed encounter with a different culture.

Perhaps your right, why should we expect them to honor an accord or convention that they have not signed or actually believe in. Which brings us to this question if they are not bound by the convention, should we be bound within thier country, we should 'nt be seen as trying to overly influence them to western ideas or moral values, instead deal with them in they way they respect and honor...torture , stoning, cutting off limbs , public hangings and executions thats what they understand, putting heads on pikes for public display that should get thier attention.

Lets not forget why we as Canadians thought this mission has an honorable one. To assist a nation in need of our help, to perhaps come out of all this strife with more freedom and rights than they had. We were asked by the legimate government of Afgan , one that was elected by the people of afgan to assist them in rebuilding thier nation....So how can you declare that we are interfering or creating tension that result in the loss of life...

By finding another way to deal with these societies, what you mean is to bury our heads in the sand, and only periodically stick our heads out to see if all our feathers are still attached to our asses...

terrorism is effective because we let it, someone needs to take a stand, why not Canada.

[Army Guy]

double post.

[myata]

Perhaps your right, why should we expect them to honor an accord or convention that they have not signed or actually believe in. Which brings us to this question if they are not bound by the convention, should we be bound within thier country, we should 'nt be seen as trying to overly influence them to western ideas or moral values, instead deal with them in they way they respect and honor...torture , stoning, cutting off limbs , public hangings and executions thats what they understand, putting heads on pikes for public display that should get thier attention.

That won't change them one bit, but would definitely turn us into something we believe we have left in the past. Besides, it was already tried in the past, with questionnable effect.

Lets not forget why we as Canadians thought this mission has an honorable one. To assist a nation in need of our help, to perhaps come out of all this strife with more freedom and rights than they had. We were asked by the legimate government of Afgan , one that was elected by the people of afgan to assist them in rebuilding thier nation....So how can you declare that we are interfering or creating tension that result in the loss of life...

You nailed it right on, the real question is, if and why we want to be there (in Afganistan, Iraq and so on)?

However, too many statements you make are taken on pure assumption. What is legitimate government of a country invaded and occupied by foreign troops? If a government is a legitimate one (in the full sense of the word), wouldn't it imply that it should able to at least maintain basic security in the country on its own, without massive foreign support? What is the meaning of election in a place which does not have any tradition of electing its government? And so on..

By finding another way to deal with these societies, what you mean is to bury our heads in the sand, and only periodically stick our heads out to see if all our feathers are still attached to our asses...

evil floushes because good men fail to take action.

No I suggest first of all trying to understand where and why you're going, then what are you trying you to achieve there, and finally how you're going to do it so that it actually stands a chance of success.

[ScottSA]

Perhaps your right, why should we expect them to honor an accord or convention that they have not signed or actually believe in. Which brings us to this question if they are not bound by the convention, should we be bound within thier country, we should 'nt be seen as trying to overly influence them to western ideas or moral values, instead deal with them in they way they respect and honor...torture , stoning, cutting off limbs , public hangings and executions thats what they understand, putting heads on pikes for public display that should get thier attention.

That won't change them one bit, but would definitely turn us into something we believe we have left in the past. Besides, it was already tried in the past, with questionnable effect.

When have we tried it in the past, and what do you mean it didn't work? The last time we ran around with heads on pikes was in the late Middle Ages (except the French, who during an interlude between surrenderings, took the opportunity to behead their nobility). But that aside, you claim it won't work. Why not? Arab armies, from Iberia to Kartoum, have traditionally respected ONLY force. In fact. a central theme to the Koran is force...most of the early Muslims converted either because they were forced to or because they respected the force commanded by Mohammed. The Koran makes no bones about it. Certainly the Pastun only respect force.

We're not fighting folks with centuries of European tradition behind them. We're not in a fight with folks who have mutually understood rules of warfare or rules of engagement. The dervishes for instance, just over 100 years ago, practised the same traditional treatment of prisoners as most Arab armies: cut off the hands, feet and genitals of men and enslave the women and children. Really quite simple. No POW camps to be found there. So what would happen if we started fighting them like they fight us? You claim it "won't change them one bit, but you have no idea whether it's true or not. I rather expect you're wrong. I don't mean by the use of suicide bombers; I mean by the indiscriminate rounding up of civilians and slaughtering them in retribution for each act of terror. The Germans used the tactic occasionally and it was extremely successful. The British used it after the Indian rebellion of 1856 and it worked wonders.

The reason we won't act like them is that our beliefs are better than theirs. Some here, including you, draw up false comparisons between Iran's cowardly British prisoners and Abu Griab, but that's simply not an apt comparison. I'm sure the Iranian prisoners the Americans have are being treated the same as the British prisoners were. Abu Griab was an anomoly...that's why it's so well known. Careers were lost and people went to jail for it, and no-one even died. An apt comparison is comparing Nick Berg having his head sawn off vs the traditional treatment of POWs by the Americans. No al Queda lost his job or freedom over that and numerous other cold-blooded and INTENTIONAL murders. Quite the contrary; they were celebrated heros of Islam.

We are better than they are. Our institutions are better, our social contract is kinder and our industrial and technological feats are unrivalled. The reason we don't adopt their tactics is because our society is better than theirs.

Which is not to say the ROE shouldn't be loosened a bit.

Lets not forget why we as Canadians thought this mission has an honorable one. To assist a nation in need of our help, to perhaps come out of all this strife with more freedom and rights than they had. We were asked by the legimate government of Afgan , one that was elected by the people of afgan to assist them in rebuilding thier nation....So how can you declare that we are interfering or creating tension that result in the loss of life...

You nailed it right on, the real question is, if and why we want to be there (in Afganistan, Iraq and so on)?

However, too many statements you make are taken on pure assumption. What is legitimate government of a country invaded and occupied by foreign troops? If a government is a legitimate one (in the full sense of the word), wouldn't it imply that it should able to at least maintain basic security in the country on its own, without massive foreign support? What is the meaning of election in a place which does not have any tradition of electing its government? And so on..

You're assuming conditions to sovereignty that simply don't apply. Do you agree that the former West German and Japanese governments were/are legitimate in spite of being "installed" by the same folks who "installed" the Afghan government? How does the ability to supply basic security affect the legitimacy of a government? Neither Luxembourg nor the Vatican have the resources for a police state clampdown, yet no one is suggesting that they lack legitimacy.

By finding another way to deal with these societies, what you mean is to bury our heads in the sand, and only periodically stick our heads out to see if all our feathers are still attached to our asses...

evil floushes because good men fail to take action.

No I suggest first of all trying to understand where and why you're going, then what are you trying you to achieve there, and finally how you're going to do it so that it actually stands a chance of success.

How are those things not understood? We're there to deny al Queda the national base it had. That's done. As a correlary, we're there to overthrow the tyranny of the Taliban, disrupt to the point of irrelevancy its future appeal, and in aid of all this build infrastructure that allows social reform a fighting chance.

[M.Dancer]

I mean by the indiscriminate rounding up of civilians and slaughtering them in retribution for each act of terror. The Germans used the tactic occasionally and it was extremely successful

Meanwhile a tangent awoke....

Yeah...they tried that in Yugoslavia and in the end it only forces the germans to commit more and more divisions as occupation troops. Churchill was amazed and baffled that they the allies could do so little to help the Yugoslavs while they the partisans held more than 20 divisions in check .....almost as many as what faced the allies in the invasion of Italy.

[ScottSA]

I mean by the indiscriminate rounding up of civilians and slaughtering them in retribution for each act of terror. The Germans used the tactic occasionally and it was extremely successful

Meanwhile a tangent awoke....

Yeah...they tried that in Yugoslavia and in the end it only forces the germans to commit more and more divisions as occupation troops. Churchill was amazed and baffled that they the allies could do so little to help the Yugoslavs while they the partisans held more than 20 divisions in check .....almost as many as what faced the allies in the invasion of Italy.

Using Yugoslavia as an example, given recent history, is not wise for your case. Let's look instead to Italy, Poland and France, where it worked very well. Besides, Yugoslavia was all over the map politically, and it certainly didn't wrest itself from the Germans without the help of the allies.

[myata]

When have we tried it in the past, and what do you mean it didn't work? The last time we ran around with heads on pikes was in the late Middle Ages (except the French, who during an interlude between surrenderings, took the opportunity to behead their nobility). But that aside, you claim it won't work. Why not?

I.e., ahead - to the past?

Arab armies, from Iberia to Kartoum, have traditionally respected ONLY force. In fact. a central theme to the Koran is force...most of the early Muslims converted either because they were forced to or because they respected the force commanded by Mohammed. The Koran makes no bones about it. Certainly the Pastun only respect force.

Perhaps you can see a pattern in your post . All places mentioned are their places. Maybe, you simply shouldn't be there if that's not what they want?

The reason we won't act like them is that our beliefs are better than theirs.

....

We are better than they are. Our institutions are better, our social contract is kinder and our industrial and technological feats are unrivalled. The reason we don't adopt their tactics is because our society is better than theirs.

Even if you could prove that, it still won't give you the right to barge into their land and go around arranging things to your liking. You're free to enjoy your superiority from the comfort of your chair. But if you decide to go ahead civilizing them in their own land, who can guarantee that it'll go by your script and your rules of engagement?

How are those things not understood? We're there to deny al Queda the national base it had.

That's done. As a correlary, we're there to overthrow the tyranny of the Taliban, disrupt to the point of irrelevancy its future appeal, and in aid of all this build infrastructure that allows social reform a fighting chance.

How long will the "denial" last? And what will happen afterwards? This is by far not the first civilizing thrust Afgans have seen even in this century.

[M.Dancer]

The denial happening is the kind that insists we arew barging into their land. We are there with the permission and assistaqnce of the ghovt and people of afghanistan. The denial is that somethink that leaving the Taliban to their own devices will benefit us and the people of afghanistan.

1000's of afghan school girls beg, nay plead to differ.