Those big red crosses make lovely targets

Hobbes

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_1621000/1621921.stm

bugler

They sure do.But things like this are bound to happen, so it's ok really.The dead and injured of the Sept 11 tragedy must be very proud of the response, first the UN criticises the US tactic of dropping aid from the air, as it can and does fall into anyones hands, not to mention into minefields, and then the US bombs the scarce aid that is effectively stockpiled.Well done, this "war" against "terror" is really starting to take shape. The Northern Alliance make very little gain despite the aerial bombardment the Taliban is supposedly being battered by, and start claiming the attacks are just plain ineffective.Then the US manages to bomb the offices of humanitarian organisations, and of course the obligatory few residential areas. What exactly has been achieved in this war, someone please tell me? A sketchy report of one of bin Ladens associates being killed? Or is the blowing up of a few training camps that probably take about a day to make (a few piles of rocks, as obstacles and maybe to rest your gun on for target practice, and maybe some hastily constructed huts) enough? As in Kosovo, the main result of these attacks has been a massive refugee crisis.I'm not sure, but I don't think that was one of the main goals of this righteous coalition.Maybe I should read the small print.

bonkey

It always makes me wonder.

The US tell us about how great their tech is, and how accurate and how their soldiers are well trained and blah blah blah.

Then they go into a war. A war where, it must be said, there is virtually no technology opposing them. In otherwords, these flights are little more than live-fire exercises, only with real targets.

Unfortunately, the number of misses is ridiculous. Yes, I know its still a low number, relative to the number of shots fired, but if I was to try and sell you a car (say) which worked within acceptable limits 99% of the time, but was completely unpredictable the other 1%, would you be interested? I didnt think so.

So, either the US intel is crap, because they cant identify the right targets, or the US airforce is crap cause it cant do what its told, or the US weapons are crap, because they keep missing the real targets and hitting these innocent ones instead.

Or the US is actually deliverately hitting these targets, but I refuse to believe that.

I'd hate to see how crap the targetting became if someone actually put opposition in the air against them....theyd be lucky to hit the right country.

What makes the whole thing even worse, is that when asked about incidents, the US' military initial stance is almost always "we have no information about those allegations".

Uh-huh. You could show us footage of your wonderful smart missiles in the gulf hitting the targets you wanted with incredible accuracy, but as soon as a miss is reported, its something that you are unaware of and unable to ascertain the truth or falsity of.

Sheesh.

jc

Gargoyle

Originally posted by bugler
They sure do.But things like this are bound to happen, so it's ok really.The dead and injured of the Sept 11 tragedy must be very proud of the response, first the UN criticises the US tactic of dropping aid from the air, as it can and does fall into anyones hands, not to mention into minefields, and then the US bombs the scarce aid that is effectively stockpiled.Well done, this "war" against "terror" is really starting to take shape. The Northern Alliance make very little gain despite the aerial bombardment the Taliban is supposedly being battered by, and start claiming the attacks are just plain ineffective.Then the US manages to bomb the offices of humanitarian organisations, and of course the obligatory few residential areas. What exactly has been achieved in this war, someone please tell me? A sketchy report of one of bin Ladens associates being killed? Or is the blowing up of a few training camps that probably take about a day to make (a few piles of rocks, as obstacles and maybe to rest your gun on for target practice, and maybe some hastily constructed huts) enough? As in Kosovo, the main result of these attacks has been a massive refugee crisis.I'm not sure, but I don't think that was one of the main goals of this righteous coalition.Maybe I should read the small print.

Time for the US to realize that we're damned if we do, damned if we don't. If we hadn't gotten involved at all in Kosovo, we'd be criticized for being callous and not using our position to help all these innocent people. If we do get involved, we're criticized because we only went in there and slaughtered a bunch of innocents. Mistakes are an unfortuante reality of war and they are going to happen from time to time.

We must realize this and we cannot be afraid to employ our full force against the Taliban. Indeed we must do so, because every day the war goes on, the more destablized the Islamic countries become. If we really want to kill the Taliban, we should go in, B-52s and B-2s wingtip to wingtip, and carpet bomb with fuel air explosive bombs the whole Taliban front lines. We should not be pinging away at them with strike aircraft, one bomb at a time. That will take forever, and in this struggle, time is a bigger enemy than the Taliban.

We did not cause this war. Our enemies did, and they are to blame for the deprivations and difficulties it occasions. They are to blame for the loss of innocent life. They are to blame for the geopolitical problems confronting our friends and us. We can help repair the damage of war. But to do so, we must destroy the people who started it.

We have been sparing in the amount of ordnance we have dropped on the Taliban front lines. We have not yet employed B-2s and B-52s, the most destructive weapons in our airborne arsenal, against them. We shouldn't fight this war in increments. The Taliban and their terrorist allies are indeed tough fighters. They'll need to experience a more impressive display of American firepower before they contemplate surrender.

Munitions dumps and air defenses are necessary targets. But so are the Taliban soldiers. Those soldiers and their commanders will not become dispirited, abandon the regime, and become intelligence assets in our war against terrorists until a great many of their comrades have been killed by the United States armed forces.

Veterans of war live forever with the memory of war's merciless nature, of the awful things that had to be done by their hand. They did not recoil from their terrible duty because they knew that the freedom they defended was worth dying and killing for.

War is a miserable business. Let's get on with it.

bugler

I agree with you Gargoyle, in so far that I think if the US is going to wage this "war" then it should do so properly.Heavily bombing the Talibans front lines would be far preferable to attempting the "surgical" strikes they attempt close to residential areas. If this is indeed a war, then wage it, send ground troops in now, and lots of them.I hate hearing about how this may take 4/5 years, I think the trickiest part will be when the war is won, and the taliban deposed, is this the reason that the US is holding back? Because they have no idea yet what exactly the post-taliban regime will/should be?

As for the Kosovo comparison, I don't see it as a matter of being "damned if you do etc".In Kosovo, NATO lied outrageously to justify intervention, then when the intervention came all it succeeding in doing was sending ethnically motivated massacres spiralling, destroying around a dozen Yugoslavian tanks, blowing up refugee columns, blowing up civilian trains and TV stations, and civilians homes.Oh and created a nice little potential "NATO state". As I have said before, I have no sympathy for the Taliban, but if you are going to attack them then do it right, don't pound them and innocents alike from afar, for whatever reasons.This acceptance of innocent casualties is a slippery slope.Sometimes it is better to do nothing than to do anything, in the short term certainly.

bonkey

Originally posted by Gargoyle

We must realize this and we cannot be afraid to employ our full force against the Taliban. Indeed we must do so, because every day the war goes on, the more destablized the Islamic countries become. If we really want to kill the Taliban, we should go in, B-52s and B-2s wingtip to wingtip, and carpet bomb with fuel air explosive bombs the whole Taliban front lines. We should not be pinging away at them with strike aircraft, one bomb at a time.

Why not just dust off and nuke the site from orbit. Its the only way to be sure.

Seriously though, do you have the faintest idea of what you are proposing? For a start, ignoring any implications, look at the practicality of what youre proposing....

1) The US do not have enough ceonventional explosives at the moment in their possession globally to conduct that degree of firebombing.

2) The bast majority of what they do have is not locally available, and not readily shippable.

3) Have you any concept of how large the "front line" is, and exactly how few people are on it? You are suggesting the equivalent of using an industrial jackhammer to open a peanut.

People suggested carpet bombing during the Gulf War, and it was logistically impossible then, as it is now.

Ever since the move to stealth fighters/bombers and precision-guided munitions, the old notion of carpet bombing has gone out the window. In a modern battlefield, it has no place. If you have the superiority to bomb the enemy's front line with impunity, then you dont need the brute force of carpet bombing. And if you're not going after the front line, then carpet bombing is no longer acceptable because of the collatteral damage.

Looking at it from the perspective of the implications, ignoring the logistics :

1) The vast majority of Taleban troops are now holing up in urban areas. The rest are mostly small mobile groups roaming the mountains. You are going to carpet-bomb a city and kill all the civilians, or you are going to bomb a huge amount of empty land to kill a small group of fighters.

2) Action such as that would alienate most of the western world from the US. Imagine the reaction of the more fundamentalist nations out there? Not to mention the terrorists - unless you are naieve enough to believe they are all standing on a hill in Afghanistan waiting to be turned into western-fried dog-snacks.

Conclusion :

1) The US do not have the capability to do what you are suggesting, and have not had for a long time.

2) Even if they had, they would no more sanction such a move then they would sanction nuking Afghanistan in this conflict.

3) It would still be a wasted effort, accomplish practically nothing strategic, and simply confirm the belief of others that the US is :
wrong/a bully/satan/whatever.

I hate to say this, but you gung-ho types should really stop with your love of big explosions and seriously think through the consequences of your proposals.

That will take forever, and in this struggle, time is a bigger enemy than the Taliban.

Errr...why is time an enemy? This makes no sense to me. Unless you admit that the US will lose all popular support for their war - that the public will en masse condemn their actions like so many of us are already doing? God, wouldnt that be terrible...

jc

Magwitch

I agree Gargoyle. As for surgical strikes, the current bombing methods employed are there because the people complaining about them now were compaining about the previous methods. It is as close to a perfect solution as can be reached, and the results are what happens in war, hell, more people die on our roads each year. Kosovo crises aside, I would address Bugler's comments on the ground war by referring you to my post under "Bristich troops" thread. It will not be simple - far far from it.

Gargoyle

Originally posted by bonkey

Errr...why is time an enemy? This makes no sense to me. Unless you admit that the US will lose all popular support for their war - that the public will en masse condemn their actions like so many of us are already doing? God, wouldnt that be terrible...

jc

Because the longer we take to get this over with, the worse the unrest is going to be in these Islamic countries. My point was, we're going to have tons of criticism laid on us no matter how we handle this, so we may as well use our full capability of ordanance and get it over with as quickly as possible.

The longer we wait, the more we increase the probability of a government overthrow due to Islamic fundamentalist unrest. I was simply saying that if it has to be done, lets do it and not play with them like we are currently doing.

PS- I don't think the US will ever lose support at home, but it might lose support abroad, but I don't really care about that. I DO care that unrest might cause the overthrow of a government of a country like Pakistan and they might get their hands on nuclear weapons, assuming they don't already have them.

Hobbes

I'm just curious. Get what over quickly?

Bombing Afganistan into the stick age? Whoopdee doo how the fuk does that stop terrorism?

Bush goes on TV saying they are attacking Afganistan to make life safer and then they warn you of loads more terrorist attacks because of it? What is wrong with that picture?

Gargoyle

Originally posted by Hobbes
Bush goes on TV saying they are attacking Afganistan to make life safer and then they warn you of loads more terrorist attacks because of it? What is wrong with that picture?

Not because of it Hobbes. You're saying that they wouldn't attack us again if we sat on our butts and did nothing?

Hobbes

erm it was because of it. Thats why they expected an attack when they hit Afganistan.

But your right, if you sit on your butt it's not going to stop them, but neither is just bombing a country with the hope you might get luckly and kill Bin Laden.

Chaos-Engine

Lets take a look at the USA and Allies intelligence in this war...
1 Red Cross facility whose location was notified to the USA before they attacked.... Then they come back later and bomb it again just to make sure..... Then the red cross tells USA AGAIN about its Facilities in Afghanistan.... What do the USA do next week?... They bomb another 3 Red Cross warehouses

That leaves only 1 Red Cross Warehouse left.... When r they going to bomb that one???

Oh! Sorry they already have and they killed all witnesses for propoganda perposses... Wouldn't suprise me

bonkey

Originally posted by Gargoyle


Because the longer we take to get this over with, the worse the unrest is going to be in these Islamic countries. My point was, we're going to have tons of criticism laid on us no matter how we handle this, so we may as well use our full capability of ordanance and get it over with as quickly as possible.

Oh - I get it. So, what you're saying is that if you go in and hit Afghanistan as hard as possible and as fast as possible. This will somehow make the Islamic fundamentalists less annoyed than a slower war would?

Exactly which weird logic lets you draw this conclusion?

And if you're advocating mass-destruction on the level of carpet-bombing, why not go the whole hog and suggest that the US use nukes? Nukes are considered indiscriminate weapons of mass destruction, as would be a carpet-bombing of your suggestion. Both would be considered atrocities against humanity. You think that the lack of radiation will somehow make your approach more palatable?

Or maybe what you're saying is "if we hit these guys hard enough to drive them further back into the stone age, we will impress/cow others into fearing our might so they will behave" ?

The longer we wait, the more we increase the probability of a government overthrow due to Islamic fundamentalist unrest. I was simply saying that if it has to be done, lets do it and not play with them like we are currently doing.

Whereas I would say that your suggestion would lead to even greater unrest and follow-on ramifications. I agree the US' current approach is not a good one, but I think that escalating the destruction would be a worse option.

PS- I don't think the US will ever lose support at home, but it might lose support abroad, but I don't really care about that. I

You wouldnt care if all the nations surrounding Afghanistan wiothdrew their support, forcing the US to violate a second nations soil in order to carry out their mission to attack a landlocked country, thus potentially drawing a second nation into the war against the US?

Exactly why wouldnt you care about this?

Of course, those bordering nations are mostly Islamic as well. You can pretty much guarantee that if the US attacks a second Islamic nation they will end up in a real war against Islam. Or they could just give up on attacking Afghanistan and go home.

And you dont care about that either?

As for losing the public's support....the US will not lose public support while John Q America is not getting shot on foreign soil. Once the bodies start stacking up, or more terrorist attacks are carried out in retaliation to the US attacks on Afghanistan, the US public may very easily change their minds.

Basically put, if more US people start dying and the war against the Taliban is either shown to be ineffectual or just dragging on, I can pretty much guarantee that the US will lose public support.

jc

Hobbes

There is no reasoning with some people. I guess.

I see the US Bombs can't hit sh!t, either that or they are intentional.

Oh and these attacks are really stopping terrorist attacks.

At what amount of killing will everyone be satisfied? Until one side is wiped out?

Kind of funny how the BBC News tells of civilians being killed and CNN says nothing.

WhiteWashMan

im not to sure if any of you noticed, but there is actually a war going on. and in a war pople get killed.
i dont see anyone complaining about the british firebombing the germans in world war 2.
a few civilians got killed. a few more will as well. in fact, im sure that there will be a lot of killing done. the main excersise of the bombing was a show of force, to gain air superiority, and to appease the american joe soap.
on the other hand, if the anthrax attacks had been more serious, lets say, ebola, like in virus. and lets say it spread pretty quickly and easily, would you then go and say how unfair that was becuase the afghani/taliban/terrorist group/bin laden/ whoever type people where not picking military targets?
surgical (sic) strikes have missed. i havent seen a single military strike by the other isde, withthe exception of crashing a plane into the pentagon.
2 sides to every story. no matter what you see you can pick at it.

bonkey

Originally posted by WhiteWashMan
im not to sure if any of you noticed, but there is actually a war going on. and in a war pople get killed.
i dont see anyone complaining about the british firebombing the germans in world war 2.

I didnt know you were around at the time to see. In retrospect, the atrocities of WW2 comitted by all sides is what has led to the concept of "surgical strikes". The world has got fed up of innocents getting killed, and the militaries have figured out how ineffective a measure it is in the long run.

that there will be a lot of killing done. the main excersise of the bombing was a show of force, to gain air superiority, and to appease the american joe soap.

Gain air superiority? Over what? There is nothing to have superiority over.

And as for a show of force...show for who? Do they think they are cowing the Taliban? In fact, they appear to be having the opposite approach. The Taliban are reported as being cheered by the lack of losses the bombing runs have had.

Which leaves us with appeasing Joe Q American. In other words...the attacks and consequent civilian deaths are about making the American public feel happier. Good excuse for a war....our people feel a bit low, lets go attack someone and kill some civilians to make everyone feel a bit happier.

on the other hand, if the anthrax attacks had been more serious, lets say, ebola, like in virus. and lets say it spread pretty quickly and easily, would you then go and say how unfair that was becuase the afghani/taliban/terrorist group/bin laden/ whoever type people where not picking military targets?

Well, for a start, I'd be amazed that they had such advanced tech. Occy (amongst others) has posted before about how bloody difficult it is to build an effective bio weapon.

Id then be amazed that they bothered crashing planes into buildings when they had a much better weapon readily available, and could have used planes for more effectively at the time.

And besides all of that....can someone please explain how in the hell dropping bombs on Afghanistan can possibly prevent a terrorist strike in the US?

Do you seriously beleive that these guys have this tech? In Afghanistan? And nowhere else? And cant recreate a lab elsewhere else? And that if we dont stop bombing Afghanistan theyll somehow get the stuff out of Afghanistan and attack the world with it?

Please. I credit you with more intelligence than that. Dont disappoint me. The threat of counter-attack is a smokescreen. This attack will not prevent it, will not discourage it, and may not even delay it.

jc

bonkey

(Something else just occrurred to me)

Originally posted by WhiteWashMan
im not to sure if any of you noticed, but there is actually a war going on. and in a war pople get killed.

On the other hand, if you dont condemn the civilian casualties of both sides, you must accept the right of both sides to inflict civilian casualties.

I condemn the US causing needless civilian deaths, because I cannot see the actions causing them being of any benefit.

I condemn Al Qaeda taking civilian deaths in terrorists attacks, because I cannot see the actions causing them being of any benefit.

You condone the civilian deaths in Afghanistan as being acceptable because the Americans are doing what they believe to be The Right Thing [tm] and are at war.

Fair enough...then you also condone Al Qaeda taking innocent lives because they are doing what they believe to be The Right Thing [tm] and are at war. No?

jc

Hobbes

I see they have discovered a secret missile launcher capable of hitting the US.

bonkey

Class Hobbes. Pure class.

Brightened up a dull working Sunday no end.

jc

WhiteWashMan

Originally posted by bonkey


I didnt know you were around at the time to see. In retrospect, the atrocities of WW2 comitted by all sides is what has led to the concept of "surgical strikes". The world has got fed up of innocents getting killed, and the militaries have figured out how ineffective a measure it is in the long run.

it was mearly an example. and no im not an old codger.

Gain air superiority? Over what? There is nothing to have superiority over.

air superiority, meaning they have a free range over the skies without the fera of being shot down every time the fly. erm, why else would they take out surface to air missle launchers? for fun?

And as for a show of force...show for who? Do they think they are cowing the Taliban? In fact, they appear to be having the opposite approach. The Taliban are reported as being cheered by the lack of losses the bombing runs have had.

so you are listening to taliban propaganda now
6 on one side half a dozen etc.
yes it is a show of power. look at us we can bomb the crap outta these peopla without being hurt. if the taliban had the p[ower to do so so you think they would?
my toys are better than yours.
its a show of force

Which leaves us with appeasing Joe Q American. In other words...the attacks and consequent civilian deaths are about making the American public feel happier. Good excuse for a war....our people feel a bit low, lets go attack someone and kill some civilians to make everyone feel a bit happier.

dont act niave. you know as well as anyone that the american people wanted to bomb the crap out of someone for 9-11.
war is acceptable for some people under certain circumstances.
and it give the goverment a good boost in ratings.


Well, for a start, I'd be amazed that they had such advanced tech. Occy (amongst others) has posted before about how bloody difficult it is to build an effective bio weapon.
[b/]
again, it was a hypothetical question. try and read what im saying. is said it was a what if senario. and again, since youre being nit picky and not reading what is being said the question sttill stands. what if? civilain casualty would be horendus. could be attack them then? when is it alright in your book to attack someone? is there a set of rules to be followed. personally if some monster killed thousands of people and casued utter devistation to the centre of dublin, id be up for a good rumble.
i guess its a matter of much youre willing to put up with in the name of humanity. i belive in humanity, but i also believe that you should not have to sit back and allow your self to cower when threatened by terrorists.

Id then be amazed that they bothered crashing planes into buildings when they had a much better weapon readily available, and could have used planes for more effectively at the time.

again the hypotthetical question. see above first half of answer.

And besides all of that....can someone please explain how in the hell dropping bombs on Afghanistan can possibly prevent a terrorist strike in the US?

no idea. i gave you the reasons i thought they were doind it above, but it was for paving the way for letting ground troops proceed into afgahnistan with the aid of unhindered air support

Do you seriously beleive that these guys have this tech? In Afghanistan? And nowhere else? And cant recreate a lab elsewhere else? And that if we dont stop bombing Afghanistan theyll somehow get the stuff out of Afghanistan and attack the world with it?

huh? so now youre saying theres a chance they can create bio weapons somewhere else? well, which is it? you contradict yourself.
and to answer you, no, i thinik they could do whatever in a different country. afgahn is being targeted for protecting well known international terrorists and for calling a jihad on the americans, or something.

Please. I credit you with more intelligence than that. Dont disappoint me. The threat of counter-attack is a smokescreen. This attack will not prevent it, will not discourage it, and may not even delay it.

i dont think i mentioned counter attacks did i?

my point was it was war, and in war people get hurt. its as simple as that. its not pretty, but its a fact of life.



On the other hand, if you dont condemn the civilian casualties of both sides, you must accept the right of both sides to inflict civilian casualties.

I condemn the US causing needless civilian deaths, because I cannot see the actions causing them being of any benefit.
[/b]
i never said it was acceptable, i said it happens and thats what you have to accept. who the hell wants to kill a single person let alone only military personel? id prefer to have no one killed in my little perfect wolr, but there you go. im not married to courtney cox or buffy, so i guess its not my perfect world is it?


I condemn Al Qaeda taking civilian deaths in terrorists attacks, because I cannot see the actions causing them being of any benefit.

You condone the civilian deaths in Afghanistan as being acceptable because the Americans are doing what they believe to be The Right Thing [tm] and are at war.

Fair enough...then you also condone Al Qaeda taking innocent lives because they are doing what they believe to be The Right Thing [tm] and are at war. No?

again youve read my post wrong.
its acceptable to expect civilian casualties.
its not what we want, but it will happen. it is inevitable.
sounds like star trek!

the nature of war is such.
again i'll say it so you can really clarify what im saying.
ia m not saying the americans sould bomb them, im not saying they should do anything.
i said they were bomning for 3 reasons as i could see it and ive explained them. and i think they are not really so much outside the bounds of sanity as youd have people belive.
i said the bombings will kill people. its a war. i said it was acceptable to expect people to die in a war so dopnt be too bloody surprised. i did not however say that they were acceptable deaths.
the anthrax/ebola reference was a hypothetical question to get you to turn the tables and see what you would think if millions of people were killed. all innocents. how would you feel? would it make you scared, angry, feel like killing someone? im quiet sure its how many americans feel?


edited for brutal use of tags

Von

The "civilian casualties are regrettable" cliche that's getting trotted out with alarming regularity reminds me of what the IRA used to say everytime a few people got blown up for being too close to a "legitimate target" like a british army regiment's dog or something. What did they used to say again? Oh yeah "civilian casualties are regrettable".

Time is a more dangerous enemy than the Taliban? Really? Lock up your clocks so!

OSiriS

Perhaps I am looking a little too deep into it, but I consider it an awful coincidence that these red cross centres are being hit. Yes there is an inherent in-accuracy in this type of attack, but even in world war II bombing raids were more accurate than this. Maybe the atacks on these buildings were intentional ... either to tell Taliban forces that they can't be used as shields, or maybe they had been used for such a purpose and neither side has openly admitted it.

Remember a war, particularly of this kind, is not only a clash of voilence, but also a war of words. Every day both sides realse further propaganda. At the end of the day neither side can be fully trusted, if at all as every news release is to rally their own people and crush the moral of oponents. I am not saying I am right ... but it is something to think about.

Superman

Ok as the war was starting the Red Cross gave the listings of its bunkers/food depots.

as the war continued the pentagon said the taliban could be using them as hideouts.

The US hit them.



But its not the point if there is no airstrikes and more diplomacy all would be a little bit better.

Winning Hand

Hmm, isnt it odd that anyone who dies in afghanistan is a civilian?
Perhaps I am looking a little too deep into it, but I consider it an awful coincidence that these red cross centres are being hit. Yes there is an inherent in-accuracy in this type of attack, but even in world war II bombing raids were more accurate than this. Maybe the atacks on these buildings were intentional ... either to tell Taliban forces that they can't be used as shields, or maybe they had been used for such a purpose and neither side has openly admitted it.

Lets put ourselves in the talibans shoes for a moment, big warehouses full of food given by a benelovent source, winter approaching, hungry 'soldiers', the concept that the americans wont bomb the red cross, massive propoganda gains if these warehouses are hit.

Excuse me for being cynical but if I was a taliban I'd be camping in that warehouse (with my ak, not an ideal weapon, much prefer an aug )