Yet in the Afghanistan war we can apparently murder as many civilians as we want, and continue to 'laud' the war (at least in our government). Don't be hypocrites
=-=-=

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/07/27/2810/
Published on Friday, July 27, 2007

"KANDAHAR, Afghanistan - Dozens of civilians, including women and children, have been killed in two foreign air strikes in southern Afghanistan, residents and a local member of parliament said on Friday.

One of the raids by NATO hit houses in the Girishk district of Helmand province on Thursday evening, killing up to 50 civilians, a group of some 20 residents reported to journalists in Kandahar, the main city in the south. "

11 July 2008
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7501538.stm
"US 'killed 47 Afghan civilians'
Medical staff help a boy injured in Sunday's attack
Medical staff help a boy injured in Sunday's attack

A US air strike in eastern Afghanistan on Sunday killed 47 civilians, 39 of them women and children, an Afghan government investigating team says."

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1636551,00.html

"Government officials say that more than 90 civilians died this week as a result of NATO and US operations, part of the 230 that a consortium of aid agencies, including CARE, Save the Children and Mercy Corps, estimate have died since the beginning of the year due to ill-planned military operations."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/30/AR2007063000537_pf.html
"ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, June 30 -- Just a week after Afghan President Hamid Karzai chastised international forces for being "careless," Afghan officials reported Saturday that possibly 100 or more civilians had been killed in a NATO and U.S.-led assault."
Posted by Steel, Thurs
-=-
'No crimes'. No death penalties. In fact, rewards and accolades, or only admonishment. Mass graves and a complete ABSENCE of justice for the dead people in Afghanistan (or Iraq).

"Theres a season for war and a season for peace"... Ecclesiastes 3:1.

Wars have to be fought Steel because the spirit realm is full of evil spirit powers and authorities and they constantly manipulate men against other men.

Look in behind most of the conflicts and where they break out there is no Holy Bible in that society or not much... and in many cases the people have contact willingly with the dark side of the spirit world.

I think its ignoble to pick on the US or Nato.
They do what they can against dark powers and dark men.
Sadly there are casualities.
Even so Come Lord Jesus and bring this tired world Peace...Revelation 22:20.

Plenty of dead extremists is a good thing. The others just didn't know they were extremists yet.

Steel is no doubt aware lies are used in this area as freely as we in the west breath air.
We may be forgiven if we sometimes see such claims as just that lies.
Crying wolf can have that affect.
I in no way support deaths of non combatants, however I do not support the murders either.
Nore the use of children and women as human bombs.
The targeting, not mistakes, of civilians in market places and such by extremists too evil to consider human.
Yes we may well do harm in such places but can anyone compare our sins to the mad monsters who will kill their own so freely?

Steel,

You’re saying that the US and NATO are deliberately killing civilians in Afghanistan, is that right?

By the way, repeating the same claims three times during your post to pad it out seems a bit much, even for you.

There is little qualitative difference between deliberately targetting civilians and choosing to attack knowing that civilians are likely to be present. Either course takes the assailant out of the region of acceptable conduct for a civilised nation.

It's hardly surprising that one of the foremost Zionist apologists on this forum, Paul L., would be trying to obfuscate the issue by seeking to differentiate the two. Israel has a long and disreputable history of caring little for the fate of civilians who are not Jewish.

Antiseptic,

Likewise, I’m not surprised to hear this coming from an apologist for the head hackers and human bombs. It was to be expected that you would seek to obfuscate the issue. But there IS a CLEAR difference between INTENTIONALLY killing civilians and ACCIDENTALLY killing civilians who are being used as shields by the terrorists.

There IS a qualitative difference between these two acts. More importantly there is a quantative difference. Accidental civilian deaths at the hands of the Coalition are far, far rarer than Taliban/AlQaeda deliberately inflicted civilian deaths. The fact that you deny this shows your complete and utter disregard for the truth.

For all you know, the deaths could have been caused by a drop-short. They kill coalition forces as well. It could have been bad targeting information or malfunctioning weaponry. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJ8HKkDr7y0&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=494wk4R2lC0

In fact there have been a significant number of coalition blue-on-blue casualties during this war. Do you think they don’t care about killing their own? Accidents happen during wartime.
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hx3TPX0wVjmZ6cxJaIz2JdcLIh3g
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_fire#Incidents_and_persons

The way you decide whether the coalition is doing the right thing is look at how they operate and what happens 99% of the time. Coalition forces do not target civilians for attack. Al Qaeda and the Taliban have made it their specialty. There is the simple but vital difference. Your attempts to muddy the waters on this issue are not surprising but are still offensive.

Finally, we get to the fact that the Taliban and Al Qaeda have been known to get villagers to lie about casualties to make things difficult for Coalition countries in Afghanistan and at home. For all we know it could have been a Taliban IED that the villagers stepped on.
http://www.afghanconflictmonitor.org/2008/07/isaf-denies-kil.html

You should be more honest about your support for Al-Qaida, Hamas and the Taliban and your hatred of America and Israel. You wouldn’t support the war even if NO civilians were killed.

"Coalition forces do not target civilians for attack."

During the current Iraq War the U.S. use of radioactive Depleted Uranium weapons increased from 375 tons used in 1991 to 2200 tons.

Geiger counter readings at sites in Baghdad record radiation levels 1,000 and 2,000 times higher than background radiation. The Pentagon has bombed and contaminated Iraq.

The Pentagon asserts that there are no "known" health problems associated with DU but Army training manuals require anyone who comes within 75 feet of any DU- contaminated equipment or terrain to wear respiratory and skin protection.

Dr. Souad N. Al-Azzawi is Associate Professor at Mamoun University for Science & Technology, Iraq and a member of the Brussells Tribunal Advisory Committee. Excerpts from researchers presented at the 3rd ICBUW International Conference Hiroshima, August 3-6, 2006:

"1998: Alim Yacoub et al presented an analysis of recorded cases of registered malignant diseases among children under 15 years of age in Basrah for the period (1990 – 1997). This analysis showed a rise of 60% in children’s leukemia from 1990 to 1997. Also, a 120% increase in all malignant cases among children under the age of 15 for the same period were registered.

"The study also showed the shift of age distribution of leukemia cases towards younger, than 5 years of age from 13% in 1990 to 41% of total cases in 1997.

"1998 Al-Sadoon, et al showed a three fold increase in congenital malformations registered cases in 1998 compared to 1990. Congenital heart diseases, chromosomal aberrations, and multiple malformations all indicate exposure to teratogenic environmental factor.

"Occupation forces prohibited UNEP, WHO and other international agencies to conduct any exploration programs to assess the health risks to the people of Iraq of these radioactive contaminants."

Depleted uranium does not distinguish between combatants and non-combatants and causes indiscriminate harm and unnecessary suffering. The use of DU is a crime against humanity.

Depleted uranium use, from the 2003 invasion, will now impact on the innocent civilians of future generations, long after this war has been relegated to the annals of history.

And good men will maintain their silence.

Paul L., 350 words of rant and you didn't address anything I said. The fact is that attacking sites in the knowledge of the presence of civilians has no qualitative difference to so-called "terrorist" attacks. In both cases the attacker is choosing to kill civilians in order to advance their aims. Claiming otherwise simply shows one to be either biased or stupid. which one fits you?

I'm not going to get into your silly propaganda game, since all you have to offer is "we might be bad, but they're REALLY bad". Two wrongs don't make a right and Israel has been wrong in their attacks on civilian-occupied areas too many times for me to excuse it as "accidental".

It seems to me that you're nothing but a nasty, jingoistic, anti-Goy who will accept any kind of atrocity as long as it's committed by Israel. Hardly a worthy product of the great traditions of Jewish thought.

They do not care how they or their families died, nor why their possessions and homes lie in ruins. They are dead and their livelihoods and loved ones are destroyed. Whether it was an 'accident', negligence or deliberate the result is death (despite your claims, they are targeted deliberately and certainly the decisions to invade a country like this knowing that villagers will die is a deliberate decision as are the deliberate choices in rules of engagement).

Anti septic – “The fact is that attacking sites in the knowledge of the presence of civilians has no qualitative difference to so-called "terrorist" attacks. In both cases the attacker is choosing to kill civilians in order to advance their aims.” What stupid statement! They would just put human shields everywhere and nato could not bomb anything then!

Use your brain antiseptic before posting again! Stop wasting peoples time!

Dickie ammunition with uranium in it is need to piece modern amour that’s why they used it! I have posted this before but here are the number of children who have died before we stepped in to elevate the situation in Iraq. http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/sanclook.htm

Steel – You obviously suffer from a sever case of intellectual dwarfism seeing that you can not tell the different between collateral damage and the deliberate targeting of civilians. If as you ignorantly claim think that they are targeting civilians firstly what do you think the purposes of this is? And secondly why don’t they target areas where there are more civilians to kill like bazaars in central Kabul?

EasyTimes:"They would just put human shields everywhere and nato could not bomb anything then"

You mean they'd actually allow a civilian populace to exist!!?
Just like the civilian populace in Israel!!?
What dastards, blow 'em all up!

Dolt.

Steel "They do not care how they or their families died, nor why their possessions and homes lie in ruins. They are dead and their livelihoods and loved ones are destroyed. Whether it was an 'accident', negligence or deliberate the result is death"

"Just a week after Afghan President Hamid Karzai chastised international forces for being "careless," Afghan officials reported Saturday that possibly 100 or more civilians had been killed in a NATO and U.S.-led assault."

Oh! Steel, Steel, Steel, What do you know about war & warlike activites. In a word, nothing. Do the Yanks make mistakes. Yes they do. I have been on the receiving end of Blue on Blue twice. Both times by the Yanks. They are remarkablely good at it. In fact they injure a lot more of their own troops then you will ever hear about. Even in peacetime exercises. Especially if the rounds are danger close.

Are these civilian casualties deliberate. No they are not! The co-ordinates can be given in the wrong order, Mis-interpretation by the fire controler, different comunication system procedures used by different Nationalities, in my case, are but some of the causes of Blue on Blue.

The enemy, is adept at using civilians to cover their own attacks. They heavily engage the good guys from houses with civilians hidden inside. They estimate that aircraft or heavy firepower is going to be used then abandon the site leaving a martyr & the civilians to their fate. The Teliban know what will happen & plan for it.

They uses the Western Press to insight people who have absolutly no real understanding of what's happening. This gives them psudo support. I have never seen any "anti-war" proponents demonstrate on the streets against the deliberate targeting of civilians by the Teliban or Al Qaeda. So, by your deliberate lack of response to their attrocities I surmise that you support these terrorists and their actions.

Jayb: "I have never seen any "anti-war" proponents demonstrate on the streets against the deliberate targeting of civilians by the Teliban or Al Qaeda."

Demonstrations are specifically aimed at those in control in our own countries, with the intent of changing the way they do things. Demonstrating against the acts of those from elsewhere who genuinely don't care 2 hoots about what we say is like demonstrating against cholera.

Jayb: "by your deliberate lack of response to their attrocities I surmise that you support these terrorists and their actions."

And I don't have to make any surmises to know you support the deliberate targetting of civilians, since you make it quite clear you do. Imputing your own nasty beliefs to others doesn't justify them.

Antiseptic. "And I don't have to make any surmises to know you support the deliberate targetting of civilians, since you make it quite clear you do. Imputing your own nasty beliefs to others doesn't justify them."

And where exactly did I say that I condoned the deliberate of civilians? What part of my text did I say that the Allies deliberated civilians? I DID NOT! & THEY DO NOT!

Do you support the Teliban & Al Qaeda targeting civilians? It appears that you do not believe these terriost do, dispite the evidence. It is not the Septics that are planting roadside bombs, car bombs in civilian markets & killing women & children for receiving aid from the allies. I wonder who it is? Could it be the Terriosts? Surely not.

You see I know something of war. Been there, done that. You do not! Your words make you guilty of supporting terriosts by default.

Jayb>"So, by your deliberate lack of response to their attrocities I surmise that you support these terrorists and their actions."

I'm speechless. Really. Do you think I should be arrested for these posts?

There are even more obvious incidents of deliberate actions and criminal negligence in both wars. To pretend otherwise is denialism and revisionism. Here is one example. The "human shields" argument shows a lack of understanding of asymmetric war and shows a clever, superficial phrase seems to always trump reason for the unthinking- I have heard the argument so often that it must be propaganda amongst the military and political classes to rationalise their behaviour and laziness in conflicts.

Do you expect people defending their country clothed in rags should simply walk into an open field and be destroyed with a single bomb? If someone is hiding in a civilian occupied village, you should not destroy it if you respect human life and make innocent people suffer and pay in blood for your aversion and laziness to engage in hard and close warfare. That doesn't make you any better than those you think you are morally superior to and condemn. Similarly, you do not kill all hostages in a bank robbery to take out the criminal inside incidentally and accuse him of hiding amongst human shields to support your murder of the civilians inside. You are dishonest to have not questioned the propaganda about human shields when you first heard it.

Paul.l

Thank you for putting some balance to this debate. Without your knowledgable input we would be left with the typical 'lets hate the US/Israel' mantra which seems so common among many of the posters.

What Paul said was irrelevant to the discussion. He was merely dancing around the core issue.

Easy Times

You advise that DU is used because of its capacity to penetrate “modern armour” so are you suggesting that civilian casualties are merely collateral damage?

When a projectile hits armour, it evaporates and incinerates. The resulting uranium oxide dust can travel for miles and miles, spread by the wind, where it is inhaled not only by soldiers on the battlefield but also by civilians.

Depleted Uranium and DU weapons are already prohibited as Weapons of Mass Destruction under existing international conventions and treaties, including the 1925 Geneva Poison Gas Protocol.

According to an August 2002 report by the UN Sub-commission, laws which are breached by the use of DU shells include: “the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; the Charter of the United Nations; the Genocide Convention; the Convention Against Torture; the four Geneva Conventions of 1949; the Conventional Weapons Convention of 1980; and the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, which expressly forbid employing 'poison or poisoned weapons' and 'arms, projectiles or materials calculated to cause unnecessary suffering'.

All of these laws are designed to spare civilians from unwarranted suffering in armed conflicts.

The global pollution of the atmosphere, with Depleted Uranium radioactive poison gas since 1991, is causing an epidemic of chronic illnesses, which will contribute to extensive depopulation and ecological destruction and not just for Iraqis.

This is newly defined as Omnicide. The result, an increase in death rates and decrease in birth rates.

"They're using it now, they're using it in Falluja, Baghdad is chock-a-block with DU - it's all over the place," says Major Doug Rokke (in 2004,) director of the US army's DU project in 1994-95.

And as tiny DU particles are blown across the Middle East and beyond like a radioactive poison gas, the long-term implications for the world are deeply disturbing.

The science on the destructive forces of DU on the human body and the biosphere is clear but then I guess the use of DU on the enemy is OK just as long as the radioactive dust doesn’t blow our way!

Jayb, you use lots of euphemisms, but what they come down to is that the US deliberately chooses to target premises knowing it is likely that civilians are present. You blame this on the Taliban and al Qaeda, but they are not the ones choosing to drop the weapons. Likewise, Israel has a long history of caring little for the civilans that may be present when targetting so-called terrorists, hence the appalling death toll in the region over the past several decades. Dressing it up as "Blue on Blue" (lovely way of saying "oops, we just killed someone on our side"), or accidental, or someone else's fault doesn't change the facts. You have made it clear by your defence of these acts that you condone them. That's shameful.

"Demonstrating against the acts of those from elsewhere who genuinely don't care 2 hoots about what we say is like demonstrating against cholera."

So you admit that the Teliban & Al Qeada target civillians but you don't care you just hate Septic Tanks (Yanks)(Antiseptic) so just blame it all on them.

What part of the Allies DO NOT deliberately target civilians? DIDN'T YOU UNDERSTAND. The restraints that are in place regarding what, where & who you can shoot at are unbelievable. It like trying to wrestle a gorilla while you are bound & tied in a sack.

The situation in Isreal/Palistine is somewhat different. Neither side cares who gets killed. The difference there is that the Palistinians deliberately target civilians at buses & restaurants, etc, while the Isrealies target a specific terrorist, if civilians are in the house then too bad, they are likely to be supporters anyway.

The handing back of the live Palistinian terrorist for a dead soldier was supposed to be seen as a guesture towards reconciliation. The Palistinians regarded it as a justification to continue the fight against the Isrealies. And they will.

Will the UN/NATO charge any of these Palistinian terrorists with Crimes against Humanity? Will you support these charges against the Palistinian terrorists? No, because, by your posts, you support them & their evil cause!

Jayb: "the Isrealies target a specific terrorist, if civilians are in the house then too bad"

I'm glad to see you agree with me. Why didn't you say so in the first place?

' The restraints that are in place regarding what, where & who you can shoot at are unbelievable.'

Yeah but every time the world pleads with the US to stop using cluster bombs that continue to maim and kill civillians for 30 years after the war has ended, there is a resounding NO.

Antiseptic do you support the UN/NATO charging of any Palistinian terrorists, Teliban or Al Queada with Crimes against Humanity?

Yes or No.

Yes. Do you support the same for those who choose to attack knowing civilians are, or are likely to be, present? Yes or no?

Oh, that's right, the US and Israel won't allow the world court jurisdiction over their citizens. Do you support that? Yes or no?

Antiseptic,

I specifically addressed your pathetic claims that there is no QUALITATIVE difference between Amrosi and a Coalition commander who accidently kills civilians.

Whether you agree with me or not, to deny that I made a case that there is a qualitative difference between the two is simply deluded denialism.

But let me try again.

Scenario:

A daily patrol enters a village in Afghanistan. Standard combat indicator is present, ie local people leaving town in droves as the patrol enters (this usually is a sign the Taliban are in the area). 10 minutes later 2nd Lieutenant, responsible for the lives of 30 men, finds his platoon pinned down by a heavy machine gun, RPG fire and multiple AK’s, which is coming from a compound 150 metres away. He can’t manouvere and he has casualties who need to be casevaced ASAP or they will bleed out, but he can’t call in a helicopter until he breaks contact. At great risk to himself he gets into a position where he can see the building and it appears that there are no civilians nearby. He calls in an airstrike.

A number of things could now happen. The bomb falls and

1) kills the insurgents and he evacuates safely
2) kills the insurgents and civilians who the Taliban have forced to stay with them in the building]
3) drops short and only kills civilians caught up in the fighting
4) drops short and kills the lieutenant and his men.

All these things have happened, although 99% of the time it is the first option which occurs. There are a hundred other scenarios just like it.

Now to even compare the 2nd lieutenant (or the flight lieutenant flying the plane) to Amrosi and his pals takes a particularly bloody minded attitude. Innocent civilians are being killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. But coalition forces go out of their way to avoid these casualties. Amrosi and his pals set out to kill as many civilians as they could, including those courageous people who responded to the victims of the first bomb.

TBC

CONT,

There is a qualitative difference, and a QUANTATIVE difference as well. The terrorists, like Amrosi, only target civilians. Civilian casualties of coalition attacks make up a very, very small proportion of the total.

Steel

I see you have acknowledged that there is NO evidence to suggest that civilians are targeted on purpose. That is the basis of my position on the difference between the Bali bombers, who did it deliberately and calculatedly to do the most damage to civilians, and coalition forces, who do their best to make sure that the least damage to civilians is done.

This is not dancing around the central issue. This is the central issue. The death penalty applies to people who deliberately kill civilians. That simply is not the case with the coalition in Iraq and Afghanistan. I’m not saying that it never happens, I’m just saying that 99% of the time it doesn’t happen. And I’m happy for those soldiers who do deliberately kill civilians to be treated like Amrosi.

Secondly ISAF denies that this incident which you have made the basis of case. http://news.theage.com.au/world/isaf-denies-killing-50-afghan-civilians-20080718-3hgh.html

It certainly is the case that the Taliban/Al Qaeda know which buttons to push to gather the leftist support they need to undermine the coalition effort from within.

As Easy Times pointed out, if the coalition was interested in killing civilians why wouldn’t they bomb places where civilians congregate?

You know they are not interested in deliberately killing civilians, apart from all the moral and ethical considerations, it is counter productive to the war effort. Furthermore, incidents in which civilians are killed or injured by the Coaltion forces are investigated and compensation is often offered to victims. http://warvictims.wordpress.com/2008/04/15/iraq-wounded-iraqi-is-given-2m-payout/

So your contentions are all completely untenable.

Paul L., your silly little scenario is a purely defensive one in which the protagonist is none the less able to see there are no civilians present and any civilian casualties are purely an "Act of God". Do you claim that the US and Israeli forces are only ever engaged in defensive actions, or do they sometimes choose to "carry the fight to the enemy"? When they choose to do that, do they stop the planned assault if civilians are known to be present? Further, do US and Israeli forces use cluster munitions and anti-personnel mines, when it is clear that the weapons kill and maim many thousands of civilians?

Take your time, I know this is difficult for you.

Are you deliberately being ignorant, Jayb? What about Haditha etc. There are loads of stories about this.

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/62511/

" Posted September 14, 2007.

The U.S. military is increasingly relying on deadly air strikes in Iraq and Afghanistan as the ground occupations fall apart, killing untold numbers of civilians.

According to the residents of Datta Khel, a town in Pakistan's North Waziristan, three missiles streaked out of Afghanistan's Pakitka Province and slammed into a Madrassa, or Islamic school, this past June. When the smoke cleared, the Asia Times reported, 30 people were dead. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_of_the_U.S._invasion_of_Afghanistan

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article3419662.ece
February 23, 2008
British troops ‘tortured and killed Iraqi civilians seized after battle’

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0mCydl8KP0

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/martin-p1.html

Iraq War Veteran Speaks out on Killing Civilians
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vACtnZIoA44

If you are listening to the official bull!@#$ Jayb then you are an idiot. The military CENSORS all of this as much as possible. And they are proud of it.

The differences are minimal or negligible. What does it matter to civilians if they die due to criminal disregard for their lives (and in countless deliberate cases as shown) or via a terrorist? They are both dead. Do police kill all hostages in a bank because of the bank robber? They could, but don't. And that is a deliberate choice.

Antiseptic,

My silly little scenario is just an example of how things often play out.

You say >>” or do they sometimes choose to "carry the fight to the enemy"? When they choose to do that, do they stop the planned assault if civilians are known to be present?”

Yes they do, regularly. This idea that Coalition forces are regularly in a position where their own troops are in no danger from incoming fire and know for absolute sure that there are civilians present and still go ahead and kill them is just not right. It just doesn’t happen that way.

Your total lack of understanding of military operations is showing. Full blown offensive actions in Afghanistan are highly limited due to insufficient troop strengths.

Patrolling can and often is an offensive action, particularly in this type of assymetric warfare. Patrolling is an attempt to dominate the terrain and force the enemy to fight or flee. Furthermore you misunderstand the role of infantry in this type of warfare.

The first job of the infantry is to find and fix the enemy, and then destroy them yourself or, more usually, with indirect fire support like artillery and airpower. Another of the roles is to hold ground and deny an area to the enemy. Britain’s platoon house strategy in Helmland is an example of this type of role. This is also offensive in a sense, although you do cede the initiative to the enemy.

But in any case it takes little imagination to adjust my scenario to full blown offensive operations. Platoon commander is still looking to kill the enemy. He’s still being engaged by the enemy and cannot know for absolute sure whether there are unseen civilians about.

There have been a few assaults like you suggest, Fallujah being the most famous. There, millions of leaflets warning civilians that US forces were coming to clear the city were airdropped weeks in advance, even though this allowed insurgents notice to prepare their defences thoroughly.

This isn’t difficult for me, I understand what I’m talking about. As for you …

Antiseptic "Paul L., your silly little scenario is a purely defensive one in which the protagonist is none the less able to see there are no civilians present and any civilian casualties are purely an "Act of God".

Fact.

"Do you claim that the US and Israeli forces are only ever engaged in defensive actions, or do they sometimes choose to "carry the fight to the enemy"?

Of course.

"When they choose to do that, do they stop the planned assault if civilians are known to be present?

See Paul L senario.

"do US and Israeli forces use cluster munitions and anti-personnel mines, when it is clear that the weapons kill and maim many thousands of civilians?

Thousands of civilians? The bomblets are bright yellow with stainless multifins. The people in these areas know what they are, yet they choose to go & pick them up. They pick them up to recover the explosives in them. Some go off some don't. They get paid for them.

"The U.S. military is increasingly relying on deadly air strikes in Iraq and Afghanistan as the ground occupations fall apart, killing untold numbers of civilians."

Presision strikes, very accurate. They are after someone specific & their followers who always claim to be civilians. Unfortunately they always keep their wivews & children close to them as protection.

According to the residents of Datta Khel, a town in Pakistan's North Waziristan, three missiles streaked out of Afghanistan's Pakitka Province and slammed into a Madrassa, or Islamic school, this past June. When the smoke cleared, the Asia Times reported, 30 people were dead."

Yep. Terrorist school & teaching kids how to be terrorists. They do that. See the Micky Mouse video, etc.

British troops ‘tortured and killed Iraqi civilians seized after battle’

Yep. Got them & they are in jail.

cont>

<cont

The good thing about not having a uniform is you can hide your weapon & claim to be a civilian if you lose the fight.

"If you are listening to the official bull!@#$ Jayb then you are an idiot. The military CENSORS all of this as much as possible. And they are proud of it."

What given out to the papers is C & D Classifaction. I have an F clearance. But, then again so has anyone who has seen active service.

I get personel emails from troops in the field so I am kept aware of what's going on at a personel level, much more than is allowed in the paper & I know what the paper doesn't report about the very deliberate attrocities committed by the insergents, Teliban & Al Queada. You have never mentioned the good that is being done, like schools, hospitals orphanages Health & Hygene, trade schools & bridge building, etc. Do you have any praise for these projects?

What do these terrorists want for their people? Slavery, ignorance, 10th century way of life, no medical help for women, living in dirt, no womens rights, etc. Shall I go on. Disgusting in the 21st century.

Paul L and Jayb, I spent 6 years in the army, I do know the role of the infantry.

What you 2 seem incapable of understanding is that you cannot excuse bad behaviour from "our side" simply by saying their side behaves badly. We all know "their side" behaves in a particular way; in fact, that behaviour is one of the reasons for invading.

In addition to overwhelming force and almost infinite capacity for intelligence gathering, our side has a long and proud tradition of fighting with honour. One of the main precepts of that tradition is that we take all necessary steps to ensure the safety of civilans. The US/NATO forces in Afghanistan are shirking their responsibility in that regard, which is why there are massive civilian casualties.

The Afghan war is a POLICE ACTION, which means it is specifically for the purpose of ensuring the civilian population of Afghanistan is protected from the authoritarian and brutal Taliban, just as the Iraq war is justified as being for the protection of the civilian populace from the Saddam regime. If we are careless of the lives of the civilians we are meant to be protecting, we have failed. To date, the evidence is that civilian deaths are enormous in both conflicts, yet you two see that as acceptable and make every effort to put forward spurious justifications, even trying to blame the dead for cluster bomb and mine deaths, while never making any effort at all to say "this is unacceptable for the army of a civilised nation". The terrorists have won, you must be proud.

Antiseptic,

What part of the army, exactly?

You don’t seem to understand that even with our debatably “almost infinite capacity for intelligence” we cannot eliminate civilian deaths entirely. We can’t even limit blue on blue incidents. The first day of Operation Anaconda we lost something like two dozen casualties to “friendly fire”. You think it’s because we don’t care?

Secondly, Jayb is absolutely correct when he suggests that Taliban/AlQaeda wounded and dead are regularly presented as civilians. Furthermore, victims of the Taliban/AlQaeda are also attributed to the Coalition.

You say >> “One of the main precepts of that tradition is that we take all necessary steps to ensure the safety of civilans”

NO!. Our policy is to do everything within our power to avoid civilian casualties. Given that policy, you should note well that our soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq are as honourable, if not more so, than their counterparts in WW1 and WW2. Casualties among civilians in those wars far exceeded military deaths. This is not the case in Afghanistan.

Antiseptic says >> “the evidence is that civilian deaths are enormous in both conflicts”

What are you on? Iraqi civilian casualties dwarf those in Afghanistan, because they had a civil war in Iraq. Insurgents from both sides specifically targeted civilians there.

So here are some figures for Afghanistan

“4,400 Afghans killed in 2006, 1,000 of them civilians.”

“7,580 people killed in 2007, including: 926 Afghan policemen; 4,478 militants; 1,980 civilians and 232 foreign soldiers”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_of_the_U.S._invasion_of_Afghanistan

Read carefully because here is the important part

“The UN said in June, 2008 that nearly 700 Afghan civilians had been killed during the year, about two-thirds in attacks by militants”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_of_the_U.S._invasion_of_Afghanistan

That’s right; nearly 2/3rds of civilian casualties are being inflicted by INSURGENTS. This is instructive because the Coalition aren’t using the civilian populace to hide behind.

Suggesting that the terrorists have won because civilians have become casualties is inane and just plain stupid. There is no such thing as a casualty free war. We have the right policies in place and 99% of the time we are doing the right thing.

Antiseptic. "even trying to blame the dead for cluster bomb and mine deaths, while never making any effort at all to say "this is unacceptable for the army of a civilised nation".

Cluster bombs were used in the invasion of Iraq but I doubt weather they have been used since. CBU are used on large numbers of Attacking or Defending troops in the OPEN. They are useless against troops well dug in, so is Napalm.

I have been in close contact (75m) from a CBU & Napalm run. Nine VC climbed out of a shallow pit covered only with Palm leaves. None were hurt. The run was directly over them. Thats 4 Napalm canisters + 4 canisters x 500 bomblets of CBUs (1600000 pieces of shrapnel). We only found 2 unexploded & we destroyed them before we left the area. (Plain of Reeds, SVN, 5th Jan 66)

CBUs are not the type of Ordanance that you drop into a villiage for a surgical strike. Bombs like GBUs & LGBs have a 30 degree window they have to fly down, from release. If they move outside that angle they become unguided. Most GBUs & LGBs are auto release & the pilot is flown onto the target by satellite nowadays. But, you should know that, you claim to have been in the Army. In 6 years didn't you learn anything.

Your dislike of Yanks shows by your Avator, (Antiseptic) so anything we say here is wasted on you. Your support of Insurgents, the Teliban & Al Queada is noted. Your support for their deliberate killing of innocent civilians in their cause is also noted. Have you ever thought of joining them over there? You should. It maybe the wake up call you need. Good luck ;-)

You two (PaulL and Jayb) keep ignoring everything that has shown about the murder of civilians (by US/NATO forces) and using the same old fallacies (eg about human shields). Let me repeat that.

1. The "Human Shield" argument is a fallacy. It doesn't adhere to reality in most cases.

PaulL>"Jayb is absolutely correct when he suggests that Taliban/AlQaeda wounded and dead are regularly presented as civilians."

Civilian wounded and dead are always presented as Taliban/Al Qaeda terrorists by the US/NATO and Australian military.

PaulL>"Furthermore, victims of the Taliban/AlQaeda are also attributed to the Coalition."

And from a particular perspective that remains true in the sense that without this war, poeple would not be lying in mass graves as they are now, nor would their homes be in ruins.

Jayb, I'm not sure if Antiseptic has ever disclosed the reason for his title here, so your guess is premature. However it makes you look like obsequious, servile scum for doing so, particularly as you are questioning an Australian at the same time as suggesting that you have a fawning relationship with Americans.

Why would it be a bad thing to hate Americans for their foreign policy, that is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians? And the destruction of their country. Are you an American patriot, or an Australian patriot?

"Two scientific study teams from the Uranium Medical Research Centre, Canada were sent to Afghanistan. The first arrived in June 2002, concentrating on the Jalalabad region.

"The second arrived four months later, broadening the study to include the capital Kabul, which has a population of nearly 3.5 million people. The city itself contains the highest recorded number of fixed targets during Operation Enduring Freedom.

"For the study's purposes, the vicinity of three major bomb sites were examined. It was predicted that signatures of depleted or enriched uranium would be found in the urine and soil samples taken during the research.

"The team was unprepared for the shock of its findings, which indicated in both Jalalabad and Kabul, DU was causing the high levels of illness. Tests taken from a number of Jalalabad subjects showed concentrations 400% to 2000% above that for normal populations, amounts which have not been recorded in civilian studies before.

"Those in Kabul who were directly exposed to US-British precision bombing showed extreme signs of contamination, consistent with uranium exposure.

"How many of these people will suffer a painful and early death from cancer? Even the study team itself complained of symptoms during their stay. Most of these symptoms last for days or months.

"In August of 2002, UMRC completed its preliminary analysis of the results from Nangarhar. Without exception, every person donating urine specimens tested positive for uranium contamination. The specific results indicated an astoundingly high level of contamination; concentrations were 100 to 400 times greater than those of the Gulf War Veterans tested in 1999.

"A researcher reported. "We took both soil and biological samples, and found considerable presence in urine samples of radioactivity; the heavy concentration astonished us. They were beyond our wildest imagination." (Global Research Centre Canada)

Since 2001, the cumulative expenditure by the U.S. government on Operation Enduring Freedom has exceeded $150 billion.

Steel. "I'm not sure if Antiseptic has ever disclosed the reason for his title here, so your guess is premature."

How thick would you have to be, not to recognise the inferance. Septic Tank....Yank, Anti Septic. Duh! Premature.... a better word would have possible been rash. But no. I got it right first time.

"Why would it be a bad thing to hate Americans for their foreign policy"

I admit, Americas Foreign Policy isn't real good & they are a very arrogant people. "If it's not American it's no good." Still that's no reason to hate a people as a whole. I have this debate with several American friends in Australia & via the net in America. They also admit that some Americans can be very one eyed about America.

Perhaps things will change with Obama becoming President. I think a foregone conclusion. Just like the last change of our Government.

"responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians?"

That's really pushing it. I that's the case then Terrorists, insurgents, Teliban & Al queada are responsible for many millions of civilians deaths. Your senario.

"And the destruction of their country. Are you an American patriot, or an Australian patriot?"

I don't see the destruction of their country. Please explain!

An Australian patriot but I support what the Yank have done. Some things could have been done better, but, with hindsite, that's always the case. Isn't it.

cont>

<cont.

By the way. 1 R.A.R. Joined the 173D Airborne Brigade at Ben Hoa, SVN in 65. I was in B Coy 65/66 as such a we formed one of the Battalions of the 173D, & proud to be. The 1/503d jumped into France on D Day. The 2/503d was formed in Atherton, Australia & jumped into the Markim Valley with the 2/25th Battalion, 9 Div. AIF. the 2/25th & some others became 1 R.A.R. All the Way. Airborne. The American unit that joined the 1/25th at the Battle of Hammel in WW1 eventually became the 1/503d. America saved the first world War & the Second World War. With out them you would be speaking German & Japanese. You wouldn't have the freedom to hold the views you have today either. Just a little history for you to ponder.

"I don't see the destruction of their country. Please explain!"

Jayb

Clearly you have little understanding of WMD and their impacts on humans and the planet's biodiversity. Nor do our leaders!

No point reminiscing about WW1 and WW11 Jayb unless you'd like to reflect on the chlorine gas perpetrated on the enemy in WW1 or the atomic bombing of Japan where victims and their progeny continue to suffer from radiation illnesses today.

It appears that we in the West have learnt little from history when we then chose to "defoliate" Vietnam with the chlorinated Agent Orange. The ongoing bioaccumulative effects on the Vietnamese people and beyond is also a crime against humanity:

http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0401/pjg31.html

Seemingly past chemical warfare on other nations was a mere "bagetel" when the coalition forces decided to irradiate the people of Iraq, Afghanistan and Kosovo, with a substance which has a half life of millions of years.

This, the planet will pay dearly for. The radioactive contamination will impact on all eco-systems, the food chain, humans and animals alike where the mutagenic, carcinogenic and teratogenic impacts are already evident.

This is the 21st Century. It's time the West ceased self-destructing by playing cowboys and Indians, using chemical weapons of mass destruction.

Dickie. "The city itself contains the highest recorded number of fixed targets during Operation Enduring Freedom."
"It was predicted that signatures of depleted or enriched uranium would be found in the urine and soil samples taken during the research."

Now let me see if I've got this right. You are saying that the bombing caused signatures of enriched uranium to be found in peoples blood in Afganistan. Hmmm....

Strange. I wonder how it got there. Aerial bombs don't use depleated uranium or any sort of radioactive substance. Anti-Tank rounds fired by Tanks do. The projectile in a discarding sabot has a depleated uranium component. It's about 450mm long by about 25mm diameter projectile inside a 105mm discarding Sabot. Not all tank rounds are Discarding Sabot. They are only used against heavy amoured modern tanks, as in Iraq. For soft targets they just use HE. Using expensive DS rounds on a 4x4 with a mounted 20mm anti aircraft weapon would get any Tank Commanders butt kicked seriously. Besides, they are better trained than that. I havent heard of any Yank heavy tanks in Afganistan anyway. Bradleys, etc.....yes, armed with a 25mm cannon, not capable of firing DU amunition.

Dickie, know your subject before getting in over your head & believing some distorted yank hating propaganda.

If there were uranium traces there, maybe the Russians? They had heavy tanks when they were there. Certainly not the Yanks or Brits from aerial bombing.

Jayb

You may not believe that DU was used in Afghanistan by the US, however, it is established that the coalition used DU in Iraq and Yugoslavia. Why not Afghanistan?

And those who challenge the US military often find themselves unemployed as did the following authority on DU.

Dear President Clinton:

"I am bringing to your attention the conspiracy against the Veterans of the United States.

"In the Persian Gulf War some veterans were exposed to radioactive contamination with Depleted Uranium. I personally served in the Operation Desert Shield as a Unit Commander of 531 Army Medical Detachment. After the war I was in charge of Nuclear Medicine Service at Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Wilmington, Delaware.

"A group of uranium contaminated US Veterans were referred to my attention as an expert in nuclear contamination. I properly referred them for the diagnostic tests to different Institutions dealing with transuranium elements.

"All of the records have been lost in this Hospital and in referring Institutions. Only a small part of information was recorded in Presidential Advisory Committee report on Gulf War Illnesses.

"Recently I received an order by the Chief of Staff of this Institution to start the veterans examinations again since all of the records have been lost.

"Today I was informed in writing that my job was terminated as a reduction in force. I have been at this position for over eight years with an outstanding job performance and I am convinced with certainty that my elimination from the job is a direct result of my involvement in the management of Gulf War Veterans and discrimination for raising nuclear safety issues.

"The lost records, lost laboratory specimens and retaliations which are well documented point to no less than conspiracy to terminate my efforts of proper management of Gulf War Veterans. I am sure that you will have an interest in this matter for the benefit of the veterans of The United States of America."

Most respectfully

Asaf Durakovic
Professor of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine
Chief, Nuclear Medicine Service, VAMC Wilmington
Colonel, U.S. Army Medical Corps (R)

http://www.xs4all.nl/~stgvisie/VISIE/du-afghanistan2.html

Jayb>"Dickie, know your subject before getting in over your head & believing some distorted yank hating propaganda."

Stop dismissing criticism as yank-hating. It really shows you up as I indicated before: A sympathiser or appeaser, so to speak.

It is 100% fact that American forces are all equipped with DU in their armour and their munitions. I personally am not sure what the effects are, but if Vietnam is any indication and guide, they are going to be criminal.

Paul L. and Jayb, I'm not going to continue with this, because you two are both intellectually dishonest. It is clear that you will not engage in a reasoned debate on the subject, preferring to rave on with half-baked defences that all ultimately come down to "they're not us, so it doesn't matter if we kill them". Of course, that's precisely the justification that the terrorists use as well. Congratulations.

Jayb, a few posts back you asked me a question regarding my views on terrorists being charged with crimes against humanity. I answered and then asked you a question in return. To date, you've been too gutless to answer that question. As for my handle, I chose it for reasons of my own. What you make of it is your problem. However, as steel has said, it's interesting that what you make of it comes across as toadying to the "master" of the moment. Oh, that's right, the US is "us", so is above critique in your world. At least you're consistent.

Paul L., I realise you're a dyed-in-the-wool pro-Zionist, so I understand your motivations for regurgitating the propaganda, I just wish you'd try to apply a little thought to it. Watching your contortions and strawmen-manufacture is tiring, when you could so easily apply your obvious intellect to genuine critical thought. I'm sure you do in other aspects of your life and I wish you would here.

Steel,

>> “You ... keep ignoring everything that has shown about the murder of civilians … using the same old fallacies.

I specifically asked you if you had evidence that Coalition forces are deliberately killing civilians in Afghanistan. You said NO. So how is it you continue to repeat these claims? You clearly don’t understand the definition of the term “Murder”. It requires that the killing was intended. That’s what makes accidents different to murders.

>> ” Let me repeat ... The "Human Shield" argument is a fallacy. ”

What ?? Which human shield argument is a fallacy? That the Taliban/AlQaeda have forced families to stay in their homes to give cover and not alert coalition forces. You just don’t have a clue do you. See “House to House”, by David Belavia or “3 Para” by Patrick Bishop for accounts of AlQaeda using civilians for cover. IT IS NOT A FALLACY.

ISAF has denied they are responsible for the incident which you have made such mileage from. And they are NOT in the habit of denying their accidents if you have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_of_the_U.S._invasion_of_Afghanistan

You say >> “Civilian wounded and dead are always presented as Taliban/Al Qaeda terrorists …”

How the f@ck do you know? I have friends who have been there. Where is your evidence that these dead militants are civilians. You just live in this shut-in world, reading your “alternative media” and you have no idea what goes on in the real world.

This quote below shows just how biased you are.

I say >"Furthermore, victims of the Taliban/Al-Qaida are also attributed to the Coalition." You say >> “And from a particular perspective that remains true … people would not be lying in mass graves as they are now …”

You’re saying the people killed by the Taliban/Al-Qaida are the Coalition’s fault.

You really are unbelievable.

Steel >> “However … you are questioning an Australian”

Antiseptic absolutely means anti-US. BTW, Don’t pretend you are remotely patriotic. The Coalition is us. The US, Australia, Britain etc. WE are there, fighting and dying.

Antiseptic

You say >> “I'm not going to continue with this, because you two are both intellectually dishonest.”

Coming from someone who pretends that antiseptic doesn’t mean anti US I am frankly ROFLMAO. Point out for me just ONE place where I have been intellectually dishonest and I will debate it with you.

>> “preferring to rave on with half-baked defences that all ultimately come down to "they're not us, so it doesn't matter if we kill them".

Show me ONE place where I have suggested ANYTHING like that. This is the ultimate smokescreen of someone who realizes they don’t have the ability to attack my argument head on. Pure fallacy, I challenge you to prove it.

This is my position. I will state it clearly and simply.

I do not believe that the Coalition forces are engaged in killing civilians either deliberately or wantonly. I cannot pretend that every single Coalition trooper abides by this policy, nowhere is it possible to have hundreds of thousands of people doing exactly the right thing everytime. There are bad apples, they should be punished. But 99.9% of the time our forces obey their rules of engagement, which protect civilians.

You have NOT shown, anywhere, that our forces regularly, deliberately and avoidably kill civilians. You have not acknowledged that it is not possible to fight a war without civilian casualties, even when you do everything you can to avoid them, as we do.

You have not acknowledged that far fewer civilians have become casualties as a proportion of total casualties in Afghanistan, than in WW1 and WW2, (your so called honourable wars), even though the German Army never hid behind the civilian population.

I’m not averse to criticism of Coalition actions, I just can’t stand the hypocricy of those who won’t declare their agenda, and who won’t acknowledge the depravity of those we fight.

>> “Watching your contortions and strawmen-manufacture is tiring …”

Straw men are easy to expose and I wonder why you do not mention them? It’s because I haven’t used any.

TBC

cont,

It is you who is regurgitating the rubbish propaganda I read everyday on the socialist alliance, and green left websites (never referenced by the way; although why would they, they’re preaching to the uneducated and unquestioning choir).

I specifically addressed your claims that there was no qualitative difference between Amrosi and Coalition Forces. I demonstrated that this was an illogical and unsupportable belief. You haven’t bothered to respond because it is clear to even the thickest that there IS a clear qualitative difference.

Dickie,

To back up your claims you produce a letter to Clinton about DU in the FIRST Gulf War, 20 years ago.

You don’t have a clue what you are talking about.

“ Since 2003, the US DoD and VA have tested more than 2,100 Iraq war veterans for DU exposure and the UK MoD has tested approximately 350 veterans. There have reportedly been few positive test results”

“ Urine samples of Iraqi civilians and US military personnel in Iraq were found to contain … Minuscule amounts of DU … ”
http://www.wise-uranium.org/dissgw.html#LAMIQ04

As Jayb pointed out DU is used in penetrator ammunition, most often in anti-tank rounds. These rounds are NOT being used in Afghanistan. Nor have they been used in Iraq since the Iraqi army was defeated.

BTW, If you knew anything beyond what you read in green left magazine, you would know that US and Australian troops were sprayed with agent orange in Vietnam, because it was believed to be harmless. The same can be said for the private use of DDT and other cancer forming chemicals in civilian gardens and farms.

Steel,

You say >> “Stop dismissing criticism as yank-hating. It really shows you up as I indicated before:”

And yet you say >> “Why would it be a bad thing to hate Americans for their foreign policy”

Mate you should stop dressing up your criticisms as anything other than the Yank hating which it is. This infection of the soft-left is a leftover of the defeated old-left anti-capitalist dogma, that singled the US out as the great capitalist evil.

Paul, I provided many examples of murder, by eyewitness and those partaking in it. To deny otherwise is literlally crazy...just look at my earlier comment with the evidence. Btw there is such a thing as criminal negligence and disregard and that's why if someone set off a bomb in a restaurant with the intent of killing an alleged criminal inside, you would be convicted of multiple murder charges for killing everyone.

I've never denied human shielding doesn't exist (on both sides). I wrote in the context of it's usage, it is more often than not a propaganda excuse to kill everyone in a building. The excuse is disgusting.

PaulL>".Where is your evidence that these dead militants are civilians."

Perhaps you should read the corresponding quotation. Such claims cut both ways.

PaulL>"You’re saying the people killed by the Taliban/Al-Qaida are the Coalition’s fault."

In a certain sense, of course it is. Who invaded whom? If there was no invasion in the first place, all those building would be standing and those mass graves would be empty of the dead Afghani people.

As for "antiseptic", look it up in the dictionary. You may be correct in your guesses, but by making such proclamations you both strike me as less patriotic to our country Australia and more patriotic to America, because of your constant fawning and attentiveness to anything that appears to criticise the USA for it's egregious crimes. You are exactly like idiots who go around calling everyone anti-semites. Such sympahies for the USA are traitorous to Australia in some contexts, as you can never be trusted to be impartial when it comes to American interests. Ironically, you become mere pawns by being so accomodating and apologetic to the USA. make no mistkae that if it served their interests, they would drop the Australian alliance in a heartbeat. They do not care for your tears and loyalties to America. Even Gibo expressed an interest in destroying Australia by becoming a US state.

No, Paul, it is actually you who are infected by an idolisation of America that compromises Australian security and interests.

Paul.L

Resorting to the ad hominem to support your baseless argument, reduces your credibility.

Your lack of credibility is also exacerbated by your totally unprovoked attack when you state:

"To back up your claims you produce a letter to Clinton about DU in the FIRST Gulf War, 20 years ago.

"You don’t have a clue what you are talking about."

I may make that same statement to you Paul.L. Clearly you are totally ignorant on environmental toxicology. What difference does it make when DU contaminated members of the armed forces or civilians? Depleted uranium is bioaccumulative. Do you understand?

Then you go on to make a complete goose of yourself by suggesting that those who oppose your opinion are all socialists or left-wing greenies. How very pathetic.

"BTW, If you knew anything beyond what you read in green left magazine, you would know that US and Australian troops were sprayed with agent orange in Vietnam, because it was believed to be harmless."

What scant knowledge you possess on organochlorines. The history of subterfuge on dioxins by governments and corporations, I will not enter into here with you since it would be a waste of time. However, I assure you that Monsanto, one of the suppliers of Agent Orange to the US military for the "defoliation" of Vietnam, was well aware of the serious health impacts of Agent Orange in the 60's. This toxin continued to be supplied by Monsanto and continued to be sprayed over Vietnam by the US forces.

That Monsanto escaped prosecution places the US government in a very poor light indeed.

In fact, despite the international consensus among toxicologists, the major compound in Agent Orange - 2,4,5-T was still in use in Australia in the late 80s, even though it was banned in the US during the 70s.

And I reiterate, chemical warfare, which impacts on innocent civilians (including unborn children) denies the basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled.

That also includes the rights of the unborn children of the perverse and evil Taliban.

http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/Monsanto-Coverup-Dioxin-USEPA15nov90.htm

http://www.utvet.com/agentorange.html

As usual.. brother/comrade STEEL is showing his total naivity and lack of knowledge about how wars work and how insurgents make use of civilians.

Well.. having now given all the attention to his
little ideological drool that it deserves...

tata.

And you BOAZ, demonstrate how you empty your words are by supplying no analysis in your comment.

What makes you think the terms "brother", or "comrade", apply to me? I would have thought they would be more suitable to a religious homophobe such as yourself, who desires an Australian theocracy.