Are Bush supporters proud that Western forces are killing more civilians in Afghanistan?

Question

A check of the facts shows that Western forces have been killing civilians at a faster rate than the insurgents.

The U.S. and NATO say they don't have civilian casualty figures, but The Associated Press has been keeping count based on figures from Afghan and international officials. Tracking civilian deaths is a difficult task because they often occur in remote and dangerous areas that are difficult to reach and verify.

As of Aug. 1, the AP count shows that while militants killed 231 civilians in attacks in 2007, Western forces killed 286. Another 20 were killed in crossfire that can't be attributed to one party.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai expressed his concern about the civilian deaths during a meeting last week with President Bush.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070814/ap_on_el_pr/obama_afghanistan_fact_check

Answer 1

The monumentally hypocritical good little American Christians do not effectively give a damn about the slaughter of innocent civilians that their atrocious war mongering produces.

Eventhough all mainstream Christian Churches (including Bush's own Methodist Church) has condemned Bush's ILLEGAL war based upon a pack of filthy lies that has so far resulted in the slaughter of over 400,000 innocent Iraqis,these holier-than-thou,sanctimonious American Christians STRUT into their Churches every Sunday when in truth they should be crawling in on their hands and knees begging God/Christ's forgiveness.

With such utter un-Christ like contempt do these good little American Christians view the lives of all others on earth ,their own US Military coined the vile phrase " COLATERAL DAMAGE" to describe INNOCENT CIVILIANS butchered in US wars.Can you just imagine the reaction of these monumentally hypocritical American Christians would say and do if anyone dared refer to the INNOCENT CIVILIANS of 9/11 as COLATERAL DAMAGE !!!

One of the dirty little secretes of the allies is that given the RAMBO behavior of the US Military, allied military personel are scared to death of American soldiers and the historical record bears this out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_fire

The same RAMBO behavior sees US soldiers slaughtering many more civilians than their allied counterparts .

Like in Vietnam,the morally bankrupt US military merely counts the bodies after an operation and calls them all "THE ENEMY" but of course many are women and children but who gives a damn eh ??

Un-like in Iraq where the "fog of war" clouds just how many civilians are killed by US forces ,the operations in Afghanistan is much more transparent because of the isolated nature of the operations there allowing for a much better picture of exactly how nmany INNOCENT civilians the US butchers .

While hundreds of US personel are used to record all the details of all US soldiers killed and wounded,the good little Christian Americans do not even bother to record the body count of slaughtered civilians as this will be just to up-setting for the good little American Christians .

Answer 2

Not a Bush supporter at all. But your question makes it seem as if there is some kind of "moral equivalence" between the actions of the US and the insurgency. IE the US is acting just as badly...if not worse...than the insurgents.

I don't know if this is what you are driving at. But the key difference is that the US does not have a -policy- of deliberately targeting innocents. You can ask our soldiers fighting down there.

Also, the "faster rate of civilian deaths" can be slippery gauge to rely on for many reasons. For example, if I told you that the numbers actually come from 286 separate successful attacks by the US against insurgents, each attack killing 1000 insurgents and 1 civilian-- compared against one attack by the insurgency, killing 1 US soldier and 231 innocent civilians... would that paint a different picture? Or what if I told you that 800 civilians die each year per every 1000 insurgents in Afghanistan -- could that mean a net gain of civilian life thanks to the Western forces acting against the insurgency?

The point is that you have to be careful of what conclusions you draw when you don't have all the data.

Answer 3

Let's look at this logically, shall we? First, the insurgents stay in civilian areas in order to use them as human shields. The goal is to reduce the amount of fire directed in their direction and to make the U.S. take the blame for civilian casualties. Second, the the areas that the U.S. operates in are usually easier to assess than those controlled by the insurgents, thereby making it easier to do casualty counts, whereas the insurgents are in areas that government or news organizations are less likely to go into and therefore, less likely to be counted. Lastly, you're assuming that there is no bias in the reporting and that is a big assumption.

If you really want to see the difference between the insurgents and U.S. soldiers check the link below.

Answer 4

been reading quite alot about aerial bombings of civilians.other problems as well it has been written in news articles not enough aid has been available to citizens as even the money tasked for that is not enough or has not been supplied. also might point out the war is on the ground as far as known Taliban fighters have no aircraft and are not numerous enough in one spot for bombings. the war as presented is patrol get ambushed , seek out fighters get ambushed again. this will continue untill either the forces in there leave or remain there for hundreds of years and leave after. this does mark the end of American supremacy this is a repeat of what has gone before and Britain began to lose influence from that point and eventually lost it all.Britain was steadily losing influence all along just like the U.S. has. the thing which will not change will be the corporation this will still be powerfull even should the U.S. army be no longer powerfull. it remains to be seen which corporations will dominate. nothying to be proud about but Bush is a symptom not the cause. people are not obstacles. besides there are some on this sight who are rude so are they deserving of having their entire country being bombed just to get rid of a few rude keyboarders.

Answer 5

Tracking civilian deaths is a difficult task because they often occur in remote and dangerous areas that are difficult to reach and verify.

Reread the link and try again and poor Rosie defended terrorists saying they were people too. How sad

Answer 6

Yeah, the AP is always right on target. They have a hot line to the region and their reporters are embedded with the terrorists. FLASH: The AP says that Americans killed more Jews in WWII than the Nazis.

Answer 7

Yes hippie, I am very glad we are killing civilians over there. Though those civilians might have an AK-47 under their robe or whatever the hell they wear over there. Why don't you buy a plane ticket, fly over there, and give our soldiers something else to shoot at. You and the rest of the Liberal world make me sick.

Answer 8

You forget about 9/11 already? Did they care about the number of people that were died in the twin towers? Did they care about the number of people killed on the jets? No they celebrated over it. So who cares they started it we finish it. And if it takes turning that place into a glow in the dark parking lot for the next 100,000 years so what.

Answer 9

If the insurgents would stop fighting then no civilians would be killed. Wouldn't that be nice? Lets try keeping the blame focused in the right direction for a change.

Answer 10

If there were no liberals in his way, he would have bombed the country to a crisp on day one. He wasn't able to do that and we had to play politically correct and we are paying for it. Stop referring to the liberal and biased press and look at the facts before posting.