NATO adds insult to injury with hollow apology to Afghans

cyberhog

In June the US commander of Nato forces in Afghanistan "apologised" for the killing of 18 civilians in an airstrike.

Marine Gen. John Allen flew to Logar province to personally deliver his regrets to villagers and provincial officials for the deaths of women, children and village elders in Wednesday's pre-dawn raid to capture a Taliban operative.


...

"I know that no apology can bring back the lives of the children or the people who perished in this tragedy and this accident, but I want you to know that you have my apology and we will do the right thing by the families," Allen told the group of about two dozen Afghans gathered at a base at the provincial capital of Pul-i-Alam.

http://news.yahoo.com/nato-apologizes-deaths-afghan-airstrike-122525690.html

Here's the thing to remember: an apology, by its very nature, implies that a future change in behaviour will occur but here we are in September and NATO hasn't changed its behaviour one bit. This time an airstrike killed eight women while they were out collecting wood and nuts from a forest.

Once again NATO issued a statement to express their "sorrow"

“The International Security Assistance Force extends its deepest regrets and sympathies to the families and loved ones of civilians who died or were injured during coalition airstrikes on Sept. 16 in Laghman province.”

The source further added, “With ISAF’s initial assessment of the circumstances surrounding this incident, it can confirm that a number of Afghan civilians were unintentionally killed or injured during this mission which was undertaken solely with the intent of countering known insurgents. ISAF takes full responsibility for this tragedy.”

http://www.khaama.com/nato-regrets-airstrike-which-killed-8-afghan-women-233/

Well NATO clearly isn't mindful of the responsibility that comes with an apology, because it's not enough to say "we regret what happened" and then just carry on as before. If you don't adjust your behaviour accordingly then your apology is meaningless.

And here is the problem, Gen. John Allen gave absolutely no assurance that NATO wouldn't do exactly the same thing again the next time. Throughout the war NATO have behaved no differently to the terrorists they are fighting, both sides offer rationalisations, justifications, and lame excuses for the slaughter of civilians.

Border-Rat

I'd call this the very definition of 'terrorism', in fact, I'd call it racist terrorism.

Manach

It is unfortunate, given that such operations in general are at least less hazardous to civilians that drone strikes. However, NATO does represent some measure of stability in that country - and once they withdraw Afghanistan will lively return to the perpetual Hobbesian law of jungle until some other large power intervenes.

UDP

Do you really think NATO wants to kill innocent afghanis?

southsiderosie

Alan_Curry wrote: »

The air strike is justified as it was population control.

Alan_Curry wrote: »

I never said they were. In my opinion, it was justified because this planet need a serious population culling help stem global warming, overpopulation and fuel consumption. Liberal-types and anti-abortion religious organizations are going to be the death of us and they're too stupid to realise this. Lucky for me, I'll be dead by then so it's not my problem - it will the future generation's problem, though.

If they were atheists, I'd sympathetic but they're only Muslims. It's not as if the Islamic world has contributed to evolution or the technological world. 42% of Japan's population are atheists, look at how advanced that country is?

Atheism is the next step in the evolution of the human mind, religion slows evolution down. Religion must be eradicated.

Alan_Curry wrote: »

I never said it was the most efficient solution but I'm certainly not going to cry over a few dead Muslims and I'm not going to miss them either. A nuclear bomb on densely populated cities in the Islamic world is the most efficient method.

Alan_Curry wrote: »

I never said ANY population-culling would be justifiable, I'm suggesting we wipe out the the inferior first by the lowest I.Q.. Countries like Japan, South Korea, America and most of the West contribute to the evolution of the human race, Muslim countries are stuck in the 12th Century.

You also never stated why it wouldn't work, you just stated it wouldn't work because "WAH, WAH, WAH, IT'S NONSENSICAL, WAH, WAH,WAH!"



That's true but I also stated religious group too, the government need to destroy Catholicism in Ireland but not kill them. Us Irish will come 'round to atheism once the generation from the '50s, '60s, and '70s dies out. The Middle-East, however are a lot more ignorant and it will be too late before they come 'round. The skies will be constantly cloudy from global warming.

Also, the population in the West is slowing down compared the Muslim countries. Soon the West will be like Russia and Ukraine where the population is getting smaller.



At the cost of preserving this planet for future generations - it think it's worth it.




Blame socialism and communism for the Soviet and North Korea. My ideals would be more in line with Nazi-Germany without the racism.

Learn2PoliticalPhilosophy.



Yet you don't state why, which I find why amusing. Are you trying to deny that humans haven't gotten smarter since the dawn of time?

Getting smarter = evolution of the human mind. I wasn't referring to the skeleton of an organism, just so you know.

Alan_Curry wrote: »

Genocide to extend the existence of the human race. Why do you want the human race to die out? You're even more genocidal than I am, you lunatic.

Less people on this planet, the better. We haven't had a Summer in Ireland since 2006 and it's because you liberal-types want this planet hit a population of one trillion people, pumping out carbon emissions into the atmosphere. You guy are insane.

MOD NOTE:

You are either a bad troll or an even worse racist, but either way, you aren't welcome here.

Banned.

Manic Moran

Seems to be a case of wrong place, wrong time. I note that the attack in Noarlam Saib (I'm familar with the place, I've been there) which killed five to eight civilians mentions little about the other 38-40 personnel targetted in the same strike, except for a passing comment that a number of them were also killed, and nobody seems to have a poblem with it.

The OP is also making the error in equating the two incidents. The one in Logar was the result of a night raid in urban territory, the other was a strike against a significant group of people in what could be well described as 'bandit country' in the mountains. Even if they have completely desisted night raids in response to Logar, it would have had no effect on this case.

NTM

Eggy Baby!

Also, the population in the West is slowing down compared the Muslim countries. Soon the West will be like Russia and Ukraine where the population is getting smaller.

Off topic but Russia's population isn't getting smaller and hasn't been for years.

Throughout the war NATO have behaved no differently to the terrorists they are fighting, both sides offer rationalisations, justifications, and lame excuses for the slaughter of civilians.

Although I admit that the Taliban are much more sadistic and brutal than ISAF, this quote I took still does apply in a sense.

cyberhog

Manic Moran wrote: »

The OP is also making the error in equating the two incidents. The one in Logar was the result of a night raid in urban territory, the other was a strike against a significant group of people in what could be well described as 'bandit country' in the mountains. Even if they have completely desisted night raids in response to Logar, it would have had no effect on this case.

NTM

The distinction you're making is irrelevant. The fact is, a coalition airstrike killed women and children and NATO apologised. After which another coalition airstrike killed more women. Your reply clearly doesn't speak to the point I made about NATO's apology being meaningless. All you're doing is offering a lame excuse for the slaughter of civilians.

BlaasForRafa

cyberhog wrote: »

The distinction you're making is irrelevant. The fact is, a coalition airstrike killed women and children and NATO apologised. After which another coalition airstrike killed more women. Your reply clearly doesn't speak to the point I made about NATO's apology being meaningless. All you're doing is offering a lame excuse for the slaughter of civilians.

And your posts as a lame excuse for anti-american hysteria. The ones that are putting afghan civilians in most danger are the taliban, they're responsible for many more afghan civilian deaths than ISAF and they put them in even more danger by hiding amongst the population (often under the threat of death) so spare us your crocodile tears for afghan civilians.

cyberhog

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

And your posts as a lame excuse for anti-american hysteria. The ones that are putting afghan civilians in most danger are the taliban, they're responsible for many more afghan civilian deaths than ISAF and they put them in even more danger by hiding amongst the population (often under the threat of death) so spare us your crocodile tears for afghan civilians.

As usual BlaasForRafa turns to his ad hominem tarbrush and makes no attempt to address the OP.You like most Americans have so little idea about the terror the West afflicts against others. A new report by US academics warns that Obama's drone campaign is terrorising men, women and children in Pakistan 24/7 but you think such a disturbing, out-of-the-box view can be comfortably disregarded. Well you need to wake up pal because US academics are not part of some lunatic fringe that can be safely ignored.

A report published today by Stanford University and New York University warns that the CIA’s drone campaign “terrorizes men, women and children” in North-West Pakistan “twenty-four hours a day.”

The campaign is “damaging and counterproductive,” and neither policy-makers nor the public can “continue to ignore evidence of the civilian harm” it causes, warn the academics of Stanford Law School and New York University’s School of Law.

...Reprieve’s Director, Clive Stafford Smith said: “This shows that drone strikes go much further than simply killing innocent civilians. An entire region is being terrorised by the constant threat of death from the skies. Their way of life is collapsing: kids are too terrified to go to school, adults are afraid to attend weddings, funerals, business meetings, or anything that involves gathering in groups. Yet there is no end in sight, and nowhere the ordinary men, women and children of North West Pakistan can go to feel safe.

http://www.reprieve.org.uk/press/2012_09_25_drones_pakistan_reprieve_stanford_nyu/

Laminations

cyberhog wrote: »

You like most Americans have so little idea about the terror the West afflicts against others..

Puke. Go burn a flag or something, your anti-American generalisations are obvious. Such generalisations wouldn't be acceptable for any other group.

Slurryface

Surely the simple solution would be for NATO to stop apologising and just point out to the Pakistanis that for as long as the harbour terrorists and encourage terrorism they are liable for the consequences of their actions.

southsiderosie

MOD NOTE:

Please stop sniping. Some of these posts are getting way too personal.

karma_

Slurryface wrote: »

Surely the simple solution would be for NATO to stop apologising and just point out to the Pakistanis that for as long as the harbour terrorists and encourage terrorism they are liable for the consequences of their actions.

Now that's a winning strategy for winning the hearts and minds of the population.

cyberhog

Laminations wrote: »

Puke. Go burn a flag or something,

"Puke" isn't a valid rebuttal, and neither is telling someone to "Go burn a flag or something,"

Laminations wrote: »

your anti-American generalisations are obvious.

The only thing obvious here is that you have no argument. It would be better if you go educate yourself on the topic so you can have something intelligent to contribute instead of personal attacks.

The aforementioned report is a good place to start, it explains why most Americans are clueless about the terror their government afflicts against others.

In the United States, the dominant narrative about the use of drones in Pakistan is of a surgically precise and effective tool that makes the US safer by enabling “targeted killing” of terrorists, with minimal downsides or collateral impacts.[1]

This narrative is false.

The report makes it very clear that the US is terrorising civilians.

Interviewees described emotional breakdowns, running indoors or hiding when drones appear above, fainting, nightmares and other intrusive thoughts, hyper startled reactions to loud noises, outbursts of anger or irritability, and loss of appetite and other physical symptoms. Interviewees also reported suffering from insomnia and other sleep disturbances, which medical health professionals in Pakistan stated were prevalent.’

Read it all here: http://livingunderdrones.org/

Son Of A Vidic

Manic Moran wrote: »

Seems to be a case of wrong place, wrong time.

Ya, but hasn't there been way too many 'wrong place, wrong time' incidents in Afghanistan over the years? In an airspace where ISAF have totally air superiority, you would expect pilots to use a measure of calm and control, when identifying, acquiring and targeting enemy forces on the ground.

goose2005

Laminations wrote: »

Puke. Go burn a flag or something, your anti-American generalisations are obvious. Such generalisations wouldn't be acceptable for any other group.

Actually it would. When Russia, China, Iran or many other countries act in a manner which is clearly about promoting their own interests above anything else, people just say it and it's uncontroversial. It's what's expected. To say it of a western nation is to provoke strong criticism because "we" are the "good guys."