What is Digg?75 Comments
- Albionshores, on 10/11/2007, -4/+22A starter for ten.
Stop sending National Guard soldiers and pilots out to do the work of Regulars. No disrespect to the NG grunts - they've shown courage going out there. Its misplaced.
This sort of work can only be handled by proven professionals and then it should be a limited affair with a view of withdrawal. Occupation of Afghanistan has never worked throughout history. The occupier has always had to leave. This will be no different. - DustinR, on 10/11/2007, -4/+20What the hell are we even still there for?
- Rodman930, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9So you're saying we should kill more civilians than the Taliban because our troops have Kevlar?
I'm not following. - valkyries, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7opium....
- MattInChicago, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6You got that right! The Taliban think nothing of using a school as a base or hiding out in a refugee camp.
- Meave, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7Ahh got to love Digg users, I tried posting positive new last week when there was a report that 68 terrorists were killed in one weekend, and it got a total of 5 diggs......sad. This is what's wrong with America today.
- atdigg, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6Terrorists target civilians deliberately to provoke "terror" to change the mind of governments that they are not powerful enough to attack militarily -- this doesn't fit the situation, this is a tragic situation, no matter how you call it but it's not deliberate targeting of civilians (if US or NATO would want that the civilian loses would be 10 or 100 times larger)
- tehpwnrate, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Perhaps because Osama still hasn't been captured? Perhaps because we're at war with the group that hid him from us after 9/11?
- INTERNETMASTER, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6"236 Afghan civilians killed by NATO, U.S.
Number slain in year above the 178 killed by militant attacks, says the AP"
thats the headline, the digg submission seems to be an accurate reflection of the content in the article.
"Separate death toll figures from the U.N. and an umbrella organization of Afghan and international aid groups show that the numbers of civilians killed by international forces is approximately equal to those killed by insurgents."
even if you believe these separate figures over the AP tallies, that's still a horrible record. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -4/+8Lets not even bring up Iraq...
- JimmyTheClam, on 10/11/2007, -4/+8@tuxerware Never read a history book in your life and you voted for Kerry?
Germany WWII Civilian deaths = 1,810,000 Japan WWII Civilian deaths = 580,000
When those numbers get passed in Afghanistan, I'll care. - BohicaTwentyTwo, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6I wonder when civilians are killed because the Taliban are using them as human shields (a violation of the Geneva Convention), are they counted as being killed by Coalition forces or by the Taliban?
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5"That's correct, nevermind the civilian casualties."
Well, you've quoted right from the Taliban mindset. - gojeda, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6Umm, no......that is the headline when you click on the link to go to the article (which, furthermore, is not particularly accurate to the article it headlines either...but that is neither here nor there).
The headline here, as posted Aidenag, is: "U.S.,NATO Killing more Afghan civilians than the terrorists are."
The article is ambiguous to this assertion. One part of the article says yes, the other part says no. Either way, the headline, posted on digg, by this user, is inaccurate....and is buried as such. - Aidenag, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Your nitpicking and attacking me because one says more killed, the other says equal number killed... Im sorry but i couldnt fit in the title " AP says U.S.,NATO killing more afhgan civilians than the terrorists,UN says they both are equals"
- Albionshores, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3If you know there are civilians with them then you don't open fire. It is as simple as that.
The rest is Hollywood.
- gojeda, on 10/11/2007, -9/+12Apparently you did not read the article:
"Separate death toll figures from the U.N. and an umbrella organization of Afghan and international aid groups show that the numbers of civilians killed by international forces is approximately equal to those killed by insurgents."
This passage from the article is the reason why your post is getting BURIED for being INACCURATE. You are required to place an accurate headline on your posts. - Albionshores, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Military launching posts but predominantly this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2017044.stm
http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/ntc65139.htm - Subiklim, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5Bush, Cheney found to be snapping puppies necks to drink their sweet spinal fluid.
Find out what this means for your weekend at 10! - swrostmore, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5Unocal is a subsidiary of Chevron. The following image is an oil tanker in Chevron's fleet.
http://blogs.southflorida.com/citylink_dansweeney/tanker.jpg - Retsep, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5As long as they don't conspire to knock down buildings in America I don't care what they think. As someone else pointed out the Germans and the Japanese lost civilians by the hundreds of thousands and they got over it. This is a war, and civilians are always at the short end of the stick when they get caught up in the middle. It's unfortunate, but it happens. Perhaps you would have rather had us just leave the Taliban and al Qaeda alone after attacking us? We tried that in the Clinton years and it didn't turn out very well for us.
- firstprimate, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Way to go! Don't you hate it when the wussies forget that to make an omelette you need to break a few eggs and that the US's omelette is the pipeline and the eggs are the raghead civilians living there!
Of course you need to give them grunts the best gear so that their kill ratios go up and the pipeline gets built. When they get back is when you can save money by cutting back on care and rehab.
Good news is that 30 grunts died this month already so the savings there are even higher.
GO US! The biggest, baddest ***** empire this planet has ever seen. And don't you forget it!! - mark13, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2"Afghans killed zero American civilians this year in America (contrary to prior years...2001 especially)..."
Obviously I'm just guessing here, but by "2001 especially" you probably mean the 9/11 attacks. Apart from two from the UAE and one each from Lebanon and Egypt, all attackers were from Saudi Arabia. NATO is in Afghanistan because the Taliban refused to turn over Bin Laden, not because any Afghans were involved in the attacks.
Thought you might want to know. - burtonbe, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3That comment is so uninformed and inaccurate that I really can't believe it has positive diggs (and I have pretty low expectations of digg moderators).
To say that National Guard troops are less professional than and cannot do as good of a job as regular active duty troops is just incorrect. NG troops have proven themselves over and over again. Many of them are prior active duty with many years of experience. - bigbreasts, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3oh and btw dont forget to add in the civilian deaths caused in jammu and kashmir, in the mumbai bombings, in bengal, orissa and bihar by the jihadi HUJI and Lashkar e Jhangvi, Nato troops keeping lil mumbai fisherfolk safe, protecting mad illiterate and hysterically virulently ungrateful bihari mad people, and protecting lil pilgrim folks who go to see godesses in the himalayas.
just a lil reminder.
we know who ya protecting, do YOU know kids, come down and meet ya constituents.
bye bye
handsome peter dolle
http://www.dw-world.de/image/0,,199995_4,00.jpg - geekee, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4The Taliban intentionally hides among civilians to get headlines like this. They are the the ones responsible for the civilian deaths.
- kcpwnsgman, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5Same reason we are still in Japan, South Korea, and Germany
- cstrippie, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2The oil is a nice plus there, but holding the country gives us a fixed strategic position to launch military operations in the region. This was necessitated by the need to obtain permission from various middle east governments prior to launching ops from their territory. Now we're right next to all the major players and need no one's permission to act. Given the strategic importance of the location, I suspect it'll be a cold day in hell before we leave.
- joshshu, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4Gold words
- Retsep, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4That's how wars are fought. Did we care about killing civilains in Berlin or Dresden? In Tokyo, Hiroshima, or Nagasaki? Civilians always die in wars, it's amazing that people are suprised in the least that this happens...it's always happened.
Also, if our goal was to kill civilians then I assure you it would be higher than 236. When our enemy uses civilians as human shields there is only so much we can do to avoid them. If that can be quantified somehow, it would be more accurate to count those civilians who were used by the Taliban and al Qaeda in that manner as killed by them instead of by us. I would imagine these figures would be dramatically different. - pawas01, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2BUSH is the real terrorist, go get him.
http://www.columbiashoes.us - pavetheforest, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Ya know, this is just what al qaeda / Iran wants.... idiots like you demoralizing our actions over there with far fetched numbers. Go live over there for a while and if you make it back, i'm sure you'll change your minds. I'm sick of reading this kind of *****. If someone's threatening your life you wouldn't just stand there. be it a 'civilian' or otherwise. ***** you get out of the US
- beatbox32, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Uh.. I think you're thinking of Iraq?
- staticneuron, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2You are still lost on the point that I am getting at. Yes, guerilla warefare is hard to fight and no.. condeming it does not force or shame people into changing their tactics (as if sitting more than 50 miles away and pressing a button is more altruistic) What I was pointing out is the sheer fact to use the amount of deaths to detemine how important a war is or should be. Not only is that boorish but it is ignorant as well. I was pointing out the technology and medical advancements that were birthed in WWII and if you understood my satalite comment ( there were not any in orbit in 1945) you would have understood what I am getting at. But furthur more you lump me in a catagory of sympathetic journalist while offering excuses for messing up in an area where we shouldn't be and which america is responsible for in the first place.
Study your history before you attack another persons view or opinion on the subject because you just sound like an unthinking, sheepish follower of our current administration which has gotten away with alot of BS because of how uneducated the masses are. - swordedge, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2As for National Guard Pilots. The word I hear about them is insane. That is, someone that I believe is credible told me that the average airforce pilot has about 800 flight hours. The average NG pilot is retired from the other services and has about 8000 flight hours. The insane comments are for some of the stunts they pull in their planes and the term is respect for their very good flying abilities. The last time they showed one of those bombing contest on TV, there were four units contending for the title, two of them National Guard doing it only on weekends. In short, the NG is there because they are GOOD.
- Albionshores, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2But what is the consistency? The ex vets that have returned will always outperform...of course they will. But they are not all veterans. Some have relatively poor experience.
Here is an example from the sun tabloid. I provide a link to the actual footage they aquired.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007060133,00.html
PART ONE http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=99068097756306458&q=The+Sun+Matty+Hull&total=12&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1
PART TWO http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=3771564445809007165&q=The+Sun+Matty+Hull&total=12&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=2
No disrespect to the gentlemen in the plane. When they realised their mistake one of them was even crying. Both were clearly shaken. Its unfair on them, its unfair on the civilains, its unfair on the ground troops. They should never have been in the sky.
It's not the best pilots that are the problem. Its the worst trained. - cstrippie, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2No, Iraq *is* about securing an oil supply and some payback re: Saddam Hussein's attempt on Bush Sr.'s life. Having Afganistan under our control made dealing with Iraq far easier.
- Retsep, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2The planning, source of financing, and approval came from Afghanistan, but yes the grunts were from elsewhere (although they trained in Afghanistan). The Taliban (Afghanistan) was giving refuge and harboring the main outposts of al Qaeda. Clearly, If any single country could have been blamed for the actions of an international terrorist organization, it was Afghanistan for 9/11.
- JimmyTheClam, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2@staticneuron
"Military advancements that should have us Shooting and blowing stuff up with pinpoint accuracy using satalites[sic]."
Ever hear of a JDAM?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Direct_Attack_Munition
The problem is the jihadis are allowed (by people like you and sympathetic journalists) to use the general civilian population base as cover. When we kill them almost all claims of civilian deaths are willing swallowed whole by those (like you) who see an opportunity for partisan advantage.
If you put as much energy into condemning that strategy by terrorists, of using human shields, you might see a decline in that tactic. It would save the lives of those "civilians" you claim to care about.
However, that will not happen because people like you would lose one more tool from your agitprop bag of tricks.
Finally, since none of the Taliban wear a uniform, how do you tell the difference between real civilians and those that are family and willing friends of those Taliban fighters or even the fighters themselves?
You can't. - Dewhead, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2I agree. "Civilians" my ass.
- inactive, on 04/14/2009, -0/+1It's funny that Americans who accuse the Taliban of 'hiding' among the populace seem to have forgotten our own revolution. Or more likely, they don't know jack all about it.
- mos6507, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Speak for yourself. I can't forgive them, period.
- BohicaTwentyTwo, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3So when the Taliban strap bombs to six year old children, do they count as civilians?
http://digg.com/world_news/Nato_accuses_Taliban_of_using_children_in_suicide_missions - bixel, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1"we did in several weeks what the Soviet Union couldn't do in 8 years" HAhahahaahahahahaha!! Wow obvisously you really do not know anything about Afghanistan. You should read The New Great Game, you will have a better understanding whats going on.
- tulpe, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2the name was changed in 2001 to "avoid confusion."
- kildorn, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2"We can forgive the Arabs for killing our children. We can not forgive them for making us kill their children"
- tuxerware, on 10/11/2007, -6/+7"defeatist anti-Western posts" .. you voted for bush right? Yes, never mind the civilian casualties when we're spreading freedom!
- beatbox32, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Meave,
You realize you're on Digg, right? You're fighting a lost cause my friend... - Albionshores, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Again many of them are not. Its not the quality at the top end you need worry about but the quality at the bottom. You should not be so quick to assume I am uninformed. I might be a lot more informed than you imagine.
Again no disrespect to the individual troops - their lives are just as much on line and their courage just as present. But if one soldier is permanently trained before going away and another only trains part time. Then there is only one professional.
This may be a bitter pill to swallow but it is a view held by many regs.
Sometimes more can be less, and sometimes 'more' creates problems rather than solving them. From personal experience there is a world of difference between regular forces and national guard reservists.
The National Guard has a place. They should not be asked to do more than that. Long term deployment in Iraq is not that place. Being the brave men that they are I have no doubt that they'll do whatever tour their asked. But that does not mean they should be asked. - farshad153, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1More blood in Afghanistan, today...
http://zonow.com/84 -
Show 51 - 75 of 75 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
