Obama expresses regret for Afghan civilian deaths

White House courtesy, now shall wait for more details from US-PK-AF local media. At the moment it is no more than a Global Warming meeting.

Our boy Obama is no better than Bush, whom he castigated on the campaign trail for air raids that resulted in civilian deaths.

Obama = Bush's third term in office.

Question for the Left - does this now make President Obama a war criminal too?

I cannot help but wonder why it is that all the neo-cons here are frothing at the mouth over this when their dear leader couldn't be held responsible for anything, at least up to Sep. 12th and at most, ever.

Again, this shows that Pres. Obama is obviously a great man. For him to get a small group of radicals to quit thinking of presidential accountability as heresy and even embrace the concept is proof of his greatness.

Taka

Answer from the Center - No, it does not. Bush's war criminality proceeds from a number of issues: starting the wars in the first place, ignoring the Geneva conventions, utilizing torture and so on.

In continuing this type of warfare, Obama can enter his way into war criminality, but he can only do so by persisting in employing tactics that result in civilian deaths despite his best efforts to eliminate them. Obama was "fixed" in this war and in the Petraeus strategy to "win" it. It was not a political possibility for him to just call it off. He has committed to a stronger presence on the ground in recognition that we are not going to "win" the conflict through air strikes, but as for stopping the air strikes altogether he was damned if he did and damned if he didn't.

Again, this shows that Pres. Obama is obviously a great man. For him to get a small group of radicals to quit thinking of presidential accountability as heresy and even embrace the concept is proof of his greatness.

Eight years after the invasion and liberation of Afghanistan and we still have some guy completely unaware of the powers his own boss was/is granted by the law.

I take comfort in the knowledge that a guy like wolfpack much better represents the majority of people in our armed forces.

I don't know what the big deal is. Politicians make loads of promises while running for election. The easiest one is to distance yourself from an unpopular incumbant by saying you'll do the opposite (whatever that might be), only to realize the role of the President is shaped much more by circumstance them personal ideology or personality.

Anybody is a fool for believing ANY politician preceding an election.

I hope Pres. Obama can continue the fight against the Taliban without being influenced by the unavoidable yet tragic instances of friendly fire.

teleprompter,

There was an invasion of Afghanistan. There was no liberation. The Taliban was ousted as the de facto government. Karzai was elected President of Kabul. And the warlords took over the rest of the country, except in areas where the Taliban retained their support. The continuing presence of American and now Nato troops there show how little Afghanistan has been liberated.

Wolfpack may represent the majority of the people in our armed forces. But I don't think our armed forces represent the majority of the people in the US--and I believe that this is one of the things that our most recent elections were about. We need our armed forces and we need the men and women who honorably serve their country. We also need a President who will not misuse our armed forces.

teleprompter: "Our boy Obama is no better than Bush, whom he castigated on the campaign trail for air raids that resulted in civilian deaths."

So you're admitting bush was wrong... or is it just that you're admitting you love Obama? Regardless, there is still one MAJOR difference which indeed makes Obama far better than bush; bush started and condoned this war from the start. Obama is only dealing with the things he inherited.

Wolfpack: "Question for the Left - does this now make President Obama a war criminal too?"

Since he didn't start the war and only inherited it, no. It is making him look worse when these things happen, though. I am happy you admit bush is a war criminal, however.

Taka: "I cannot help but wonder why it is that all the neo-cons here are frothing at the mouth over this when their dear leader couldn't be held responsible for anything, at least up to Sep. 12th and at most, ever."

No kidding! They come on here and shout, "Aha! Obama the war monger!" in some attempt to vent frustration and misdirect anger, all the while having defended bush for actually STARTING these things. They are therefore admitting that bush was wrong the whole time, while still denying that Obama had to inherit this whole mess from GWB.

Other than that, I think SezWho answered the ridiculous assertions by the few remaining bush supporters very well.

Get out of Afghanistan.

teleprompter,

If wolfpack so accurately represents those in the military, that would mean that the military, by and large, find your dear leader to be a war criminal.

"too" mean anything to you (as in, too easy)?

Taka

It's pretty cool being a moderate. I don't have to completely change my opinion based on who is elected even tho I didn't vote for Bush and I did vote for Obama.

I don't have to completely change my opinion based on who is elected even tho I didn't vote for Bush and I did vote for Obama.

No. But apparently you are compelled to suggest that others are doing so. And that casts doubt on your credentials as a moderate.

It doesn't seem to me that anyone here has really changed their opinion. What I see is that sarcasm doesn't work and that pot-shooting wounds a lot of feet. The war has not become a "good war" simply because it is being conducted by a different President. Nor have that most vociferous war supporters acquiesced to the idea that Bush is a war criminal simply because Obama is doing some of the same things that Bush did.

I think Obama is wrong in persisting with the air strikes. I thought they were wrong before the election and I think so now. But my take on the situation is that Bush was incapable of admitting error and reversing course and Obama is not.

At present, Obama is doing pretty much what he promised he would do. I don't think this will work--primarily because we cannot define a reasonably tenable objective in Afghanistan. Bush (and McCain) promised to plug away no matter what. I think (or at least, I hope) Obama will be far more practical.

So the Taliban behead civilians to lure the Afghan military/police who call in US air support which results in civilian collateral casualties. So who is responsible? Assuming the GPS-guided JDAM didn't miss its intended target by a large margin, I don't think you can blame the guy or gal who launched it...

Foreign policy has continuity, political agenda does not.

Wolfpack may represent the majority of the people in our armed forces. But I don't think our armed forces represent the majority of the people in the US--and I believe that this is one of the things that our most recent elections were about.

Interesting opinion, for someone claiming to be American, and from the center no less.

The armed forces are the most respected oraganization in US society - far moreso than the politicians we elect and the mainstream media shilling for the ones the Democrat Party produces.

So you're admitting bush was wrong... or is it just that you're admitting you love Obama?

No, I am simply one voice in cyberspace. You don't even know if I voted for Bush in 00 or 04, or for Obama in 08.

It was the majority of the US electorate and their elected representatives who sent our troops into Afghanistan.

I can't believe this needs repeating.

If wolfpack so accurately represents those in the military, that would mean that the military, by and large, find your dear leader to be a war criminal.

Though you have no proof I ever even voted for the guy I guess by "dear leader" you mean Bush - whom you served (if actually in the Navy).

I know this much. The military stood when Bush addressed them. They sit for Obama.

It's just the opposite with the "enchanted" media.

They stand for Obama.

The Political Expedience of the Left:

Innocent casualties under Bush: War crimes

Innocent casualties under Obama: Unavoidable

Leftists couldn't care less about innocents, unless there's some political gain to be had. Nothing new here.

teleprompter,

Interesting opinion, for someone claiming to be American, and from the center no less.

I'm glad you find this interesting. I'm sorry, however, that you offer neither agreement nor refutation. I'm even sorrier that you resort to the weasel word "claiming". Your comment merits a hearty, "So?"

The armed forces are the most respected oraganization in US society - far moreso than the politicians we elect and the mainstream media shilling for the ones the Democrat Party produces.

The armed forces are an organization. Our politicians are not (although the House and Senate are) and neither is the mainstream media (although CNN , the NYT, FOX and the WSJ are). (I didn't know the latter two were shilling for the Democrats, though.) I have no doubt that the armed forces are respected. I think you will find that even those who criticize how they are being used respect them. However, respect and agreement are two different things.

It seems as though you have missed my point. It is not whether we respect the armed forces, it is whether we agree with how they are being used. That the members of the armed forces may agree does not make them less worthy of respect nor does it mean that our respect for them translates to agreement with them.

First george bush is considered a traitor and a war criminal because of Iraq, not Afghanistan.

george bush never got an agreement with Pakistan to bomb in cross country bombings, however Barack Obama got an agreement with Pakistan.

Doesn't make these deaths any easier, at least Barack Obama is saying he regrets these innocent deaths where george bush just kept his mouth shut and smirked.

Wolfpack does not represent the majority of the military. My two sons, one retires from the navy in June this year and the other currently is serving his 23rd year in the air force and my son-in-law in his 2nd year in the USMC say much differently. They tell me that the military is much happier that a complete moron isn't the president and that a commander-n-chief with intellegence is making decisions where it comes to the military.

I have too many friends in the Dept. of Def., (I retired from there) who are also glad that george bush is gone, John McCain was defeated and that Barack Obama is president.

Back to the Afghanistan, Barack Obama stood up and said that he regrets that there were civilian deaths. And I read posters here who do nothing but vilify Obama because he's not republican. Obama has a bit of empathy for those who were wrongfully hurt. Sign of a great man. < :-)

Obama is all words, smymy words, just like the cheesy Tony Blair. The fact is one sovereign nation is murdering civilians in another sovereign nation. Sorry, nations. That is an International Crime. If you take US logic, Bin Laden can just apologize for killing those innocents and just say his intention was to smash the Twin Towers as a symbol of all the injustices perpetrated by capitalism and globalization. Using US logic of opps sorry about those folks, Bin Larden is actually an alright guy...

Den Den, Barack Obama got and agreement with Pakistan that allows US forces to attack and take out those verified militant hideouts.

This happen to be a serious mistake. Not a crime. < :-)

Den Den

I really don't think you of all people should be preaching about logic, let along attempting to apply it...

He got an agreement alright, just like Bush did I bet..."let us do what we want or we will bomb you into the stoneage"...nice agreement. The majority of Pakistanis are against this, listen to the airwaves. And this is not the only mistake. Why do you think an idiot like Bin Larden is so popular?

And I forgot to mention the billion$ that is given to the government without any transparent paper trail...

Den Den is obviously a troll. Please don't feed him.

I'm getting tired of this "he inherited this crap". Look, the man asked us to give him the job. He knew very well what he was getting into. saying he inherited is completely wrong.

This latest action is his responsibility and he, from my point of view, has accepted it. However, we can blame everyone we want to, the fact is that if the Taliban nor AQ hadn't taken over the country, this wouldn't be happening.

O has won my respect today. At least he is not the one saying he inherited it. No, he's taken it on like a man!

teleprompter - "The military stood when Bush addressed them. They sit for Obama."

That was because they couldn't wait to leave the room when bush spoke.

On the other hand, unlike bush, President Obama actually speaks the same first language as the troops he is addressing. :-)

Den Den - "Why do you think an idiot like Bin Larden is so popular?"

Probably because bush shrieked he would catch OBL "dead or alive" and then completely failed in both. And Republicans still love him as one of their own.

skipthesong: I'm getting tired of this "he inherited this crap". Look, the man asked us to give him the job. He knew very well what he was getting into. saying he inherited is completely wrong.

He asked for and took the job Skip, yes. He did not ask for the problems though. I am sure he would have been quite pleased if Bush solved them before he entered the Oval Office.

The problems that began and were not solved by the Bush administration were inherited by Obama's admin. The term is commonly used that way to refer to problems that began in the previous administrations. Its common and apt parlance.

However, we can blame everyone we want to, the fact is that if the Taliban nor AQ hadn't taken over the country, this wouldn't be happening.

I do not remember us jumping into action the second the Taliban took over. So I am thinking there is some other reason this is happening.

"Why do you think an idiot like Bin Larden is so popular?"

He is the modern face of Islam.

That no major theological figure in Islam has spoken against OBL (who is responsible for the deaths of thousands) or even issued the sort of fatwa/death sentence Salman Rushdie faced (for a book)proves my assertion.

Den Den "Why do you think an idiot like Bin Larden is so popular?"

He is the Che Guevara of Islam.

Den Den "Why do you think an idiot like Bin Larden is so popular?"

Because bush's failure to capture him "dead or alive" - as he said he would - added to the long list of Republican-supported GOP failures that helped push Barack Obama to the presidency? :-)

Den Den "Why do you think an idiot like Bin Larden is so popular?"

I guess if one wants to define popularity as having to hide your ugly mug in a cave all day because you can't move around in public at all, well kinda strange way to be popular if you ask me.

Sail, you would probably do the same if you faced similar threats as OBL does, which nullifies your argument.

He asked for and took the job Skip, yes. He did not ask for the problems though." and who does? How long has this war(s) been going on? How long have the indications to the economy busting been going on?

No, its his ball now. And yo, I ain't even criticizing him on it. Vent somewhere else. I'm applauding him.

"He is the modern face of Islam."

....to the extreme American right.

Bin Laden has to have snuffed-it by now. No self-centred, egotistical meglomaniac can go that long without preening itself in the public eye.

Sail, you would probably do the same if you faced similar threats as OBL does, which nullifies your argument.

Nope, if he was as popular as some seem to think he could walk freely through the population as they would be his shield. He could hold rallys with thousands of people in attendance, he would be protected by his adoring masses. Throngs of people would attend and listen to his every word.

Instead he has been stuck in a cave and sends out crappy videos every now and then. Nah Sushi, he faces the same threats every other leader faces the threat of assasination. You don't see Obama hunkering down in a cave do you? You don't that Obama also doesn't face the same threats?

Popular? If you think he is so popular where are the mass rallies of people waving his picture in support?

saliwind, do you really think he is hiding his tall, well defined-featured face in a cave? Comeon. His portrait is (sadly) openly hanging in shops and home walls in hundreds of millions of locations. He was an nobody before(apart from being on the CIA payroll for fighting for the US interests in Afghanistan during the Russian invasion). Also, he is NOT the face of Islam. Che Guevara maybe, or Nelson Mandala or some other freedom fighter. People talking up this idiot (Bush, some of you guys) are just creating an anti-hero for the impoverished and oppressed. What did a poster say before...reap what you sow...

His portrait is (sadly) openly hanging in shops and home walls in hundreds of millions of locations.

I've been to the Middle East, have you? I saw one picture of him in a shop the whole time I was in theatre. It was on a T-Shirt. It was there when I first went to the region, and it was there in the same shop when I left the region 6 months later. Popular? Why couldn't the shop owner sell it?

Che Guevara maybe, or Nelson Mandala or some other freedom fighter

You have some serious issues if you think this terrorist is a freedom fighter. He is a terrorist period and uses the corpses of dead civilians as nothing more then a bloody poster to further his demented cause.

And before you even think about trying to compare the deaths of innocent civilians by the U.S Military or for that matter NATO forces as being on the same par as this fool. Unless you can prove that U.S and NATO intentionally target innocent civilians ON PURPOSE in an act of cold blooded murder instead of operating in the rules of armed combat and engagement with the enemy, as oppossed to the Bin Laden and the Taliban, who do kill innocent civilians ON PURPOSE. You don't have a real case and are just trying to stir the pot with your posts.

sailwind. actually I have been. Do you think I get my facts from Fox news?

Ok. A fancy dress party. Sheeesh, you got me buddy.

Like I sad, bin Laden is the face of modern Islam only to extreme right-wing Americans and various other hate groups.

When does Osama express regrets for civilian deaths - in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Palestine, London, New York, Beslan, Nigeria, Somalia, etc ?

Ossama bin Laden is still on the run because george bush allowed him to escape.

Afghanistan is in the shape because george bush pulled troops out bof Afghanistan and went to Iraq to start a war based on lies.

Afghanistan is in the shape it is because bush allowed the tribal leaders to search for bin Laden. That's real smart.

Afghanistan is in the shape it is because instead of taking care of the Taliban and defeating the ones who supported and attacked us on 9/11, bush built his cadre of lies and let the terrorist who did attacks us and tried to kill as many as possible to escape and regroup in Pakistan.

Barack Obama won the election and got an agreement with Pakistan to be able to do cross border attacks, something bush never did, he relied on milirary intellegence to determine where to bomb. Our military intellegence failed us this time and many civilians were killed and wounded.

Barack Obama took the high road and apologizes for these causalties. george bush never had the guts to say I'm sorry for such mistakes.

Barack Obama may not be able to stop the Taliban unless Pakistan steps up to the plate and starts taking care of the Taliban on their side of the border.

With Obama apologizing for these mistakes, you can be assured that he'll say enough is enough. Get the targets right or don't bomb.

bush didn't care. Remember "Stay the course?" < :-)

"When does Osama express regrets for civilian deaths - in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Palestine, London, New York, Beslan, Nigeria, Somalia, etc ?"

Foistly, that has nothing to do with the topic. Secondly, who cares what bin Laden thinks? Comparing yourself to an alleged mass-murdering terrorist doesn't seem reasonable to me...

Problem is that the targets are right. Since the taliban is not an official military, I guess they are civilians. No need to apologize...

skipthesong: No, its his ball now. And yo, I ain't even criticizing him on it. Vent somewhere else. I'm applauding him.

Obama seems like the type of man who accepts responsibility for the outcome of Afghanistan, and that's one reason why I like him. I think people are willing to give him time before they make a decision. Don't confuse what Obama thinks with what internet message board posters say. They might pass the buck back to Bush but I don't see Obama doing that. It's yet another example of how people who claim to be Obama supporters would probably not get much support from Obama himself. If people started blaming Bush for what happened in Afghanistan today he'd probably tell them to sit down and shut up...

sailwind: "Nope, if he was as popular as some seem to think he could walk freely through the population as they would be his shield. He could hold rallys with thousands of people in attendance, he would be protected by his adoring masses. Throngs of people would attend and listen to his every word."

I don't want to get into this TOO much because we're venturing into the off-topic, but it should be pointed out how foolishly naive your statement is. You assume that by people saying OBL is popular, it is in an isolated (regardless of size) population with no external threats. Suppose OBL COULD walk around freely and people listen to his every word... you don't think if a drone or American satellite happened to see him they'd join in the party, do you? The US has relied on (and have failed) this technology to capture/kill him and many others to date. And again, back to the isolated fan-base point, no one is foolish enough to believe that there are no people in a crowd who want him dead.

Hiding in a cave has nothing to do with him being 'unpopular'. The man is hiding in a cave because he is the world's most wanted terrorist, and that is a fact EVERYWHERE (regardless of whether there are some who disagree with the meaning of the label). Much as some of you would like to think Obama is a terrorist, he is not -- he is the democratically elected leader of the USA, and not a criminal. It's not an issue of 'popularity'.

SuperLib: "They might pass the buck back to Bush but I don't see Obama doing that. It's yet another example of how people who claim to be Obama supporters would probably not get much support from Obama himself."

You make a lot of good points, which I applaud you for, but don't confuse people who say, for example, bush is responsible for STARTING the war and what it has led to with people saying Obama has no responsibility whatsoever. There's a big difference. I haven't really seen anyone on here say Obama has no responsibility in what's happening (and in fact have seen more than a few say he's starting to look bad, etc.), whereas I HAVE seen some literally ultra-rightists on here literally say the war in Afghanistan if Obama's fault.

That no major theological figure in Islam has spoken against OBL (who is responsible for the deaths of thousands) or even issued the sort of fatwa/death sentence Salman Rushdie faced (for a book)proves my assertion.

So incredibly wrong once again (or is it still?).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1544955.stm

http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2001-09/13/article25.shtml

"Hijacking Planes, terrorizing innocent people and shedding blood constitute a form of injustice that can not be tolerated by Islam, which views them as gross crimes and sinful acts." Shaykh Abdul Aziz al-Ashaikh (Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia and Chairman of the Senior Ulama, on September 15th, 2001)

*The terrorists acts, from the perspective of Islamic law, constitute the crime of hirabah (waging war against society)." Sept. 27, 2001 fatwa, signed by:

Shaykh Yusuf al-Qaradawi (Grand Islamic Scholar and Chairman of the Sunna and Sira Countil, Qatar)

Judge Tariq al-Bishri, First Deputy President of the Council d'etat, Egypt

Dr. Muhammad s. al-Awa, Professor of Islamic Law and Shari'a, Egypt

Dr. Haytham al-Khayyat, Islamic scholar, Syria

Fahmi Houaydi, Islamic scholar, Syria

Shaykh Taha Jabir al-Alwani, Chairman, North America High Council

*"Neither the law of Islam nor its ethical system justify such a crime." Zaki Badawi, Principal of the Muslim College in London. Cited in Arab News, Sept. 28, 2001.

*"It is wrong to kill innocent people. It is also wrong to Praise those who kill innocent people." Mufti Nizamuddin Shamzai, Pakistan. Cited in NY Times, Sept. 28, 2001.

*"What these people stand for is completely against all the principles that Arab Muslims believe in." King Abdullah II, of Jordan; cited in Middle East Times, Sept. 28, 2001.

The above statements by high ranking international Muslim scholars appeared in an advertisement placed by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, in the NY Times, October 17th, 2001 (p. A 17)

Last time I posted something that silly, I felt I had a responsibility to the other posters here at JT to publically come out and admit my error. But that's just me.

Taka

Sail,

You don't see Obama hunkering down in a cave do you? You don't that Obama also doesn't face the same threats?

I'm not arguing with your overall point regarding obl's popularity (or lack thereof). I agree with you, I also believe he's not just hiding from the U.S.

However, I do think obl would be a lot more public if he had the same intelligence capabilities and Secret Service protection that is afforded the President.

Taka

“We have advanced unprecedented cooperation,” Obama declared. “We will work for the day when our nations are linked not by a common enemy but by a shared peace and prosperity.”

I generally support President Obama, but this is a statement of wishful thinking (read: foolishness) in the extreme.

Examining the "cooperation" that Obama speaks of, we find in the cooperative Karzai a "leader" with the support of a dwindling number of Afghanis and who would likely not be in power without substantial American protection.

Similarly, Pakistan's Zardari, who can make no claim to being a popular leader, has no control over vast portions of his own country as well as over its military. A military coup -- which Pakistan has regularly -- will certainly bear this out, and would give Zadari no more than a year at the most before events overtake him.

Since a growing majority of Afghans and Pakistanis are not cooperating with Karzai and Zardari (respectively), touting all of this "cooperation" does nothing except to prey upon the gullibility of the average American.

If, on the other hand, Obama is setting the American people up for a major change in US policy, anticipating that neither Karzai nor Zardari is going to last very long, he is bluffing very well right now behind all of these fancy phrases.

teleprompter, Barack Obama is nothing like george bush. Barack Obama is the complete opposite of george bush.

But please list their similarities. < :-)

Moderator: George Bush is not relevant to this discussion. Please stop trying to turn every topic into an anti-Bush rant.

I wonder what the chances are that the Afghan civilians were killed by grenades hurled by Taliban militants, who then loaded some of the bodies into a vehicle and drove around the village claiming the dead were victims of a U.S. air strike.

daydreamer - Whaddya think?

yabits - So, you think there's no chance of that, then? That the Taliban are above that sort of thing?

If those are Taliban militants who later portray themselves as innocent civilians when they register protests with officials of the Karzai government, then you have even bigger problems.

So, you think there's no chance of that, then? That the Taliban are above that sort of thing?

If you are suggesting that the Taliban are timing their attacks to coordinate with US airstrikes, and then using their limited resources to misrepresent the pile of victims by dumping bodies of those who the Taliban have previously killed and who don't actually live in the houses/compounds attacked, then I suggest you seek serious help.

I wonder what the chances are that the Afghan civilians were killed by grenades hurled by Taliban militants, who then loaded some of the bodies into a vehicle and drove around the village claiming the dead were victims of a U.S. air strike.

Or maybe the Afghan civilians were killed by grenades hurled by Taliban militants, who then took them to an island beach house, where they hid from the law by making it look like the civilians were still alive, and creating hilarity along the way.

You know...since we're throwing out theories and stuff.

Taka

Sarge I don't think that the Taliban are above that, but in this case I think you're going to see clear and compelling evidence that the bombs used were US explosives. < :-)

Taka,

Hope your doing well. Life is good here in Yoko. I do have to add something though in Sarges defense though even if his theory on the surface may sound at first glance as outlandish as yours.

I have to say I wouldn't put it past the Taliban to actually stage dead civilian bodies they killed and claim it was all from a U.S airstrike instead for the propaganda they advantage they get.

Remember this is straight from the article as to how they lured an ambush in the first place.

Gen David McKiernan said American forces came to the aid of Afghans who may have been ambushed by the Taliban. He said the Taliban beheaded three civilians, perhaps to lure police. They already had three beheaded bodies to add to pile right from the git go.

Just letting some folks remember what the Taliban are really like, that gets lost sometimes in the discussion.

I have to say I wouldn't put it past the Taliban to actually stage dead civilian bodies they killed and claim it was all from a U.S airstrike instead for the propaganda they advantage they get.

Simply ludicrous. It is fairly easy to tell who was killed by being cut with a blade and who was blown up. One can't but note that no one has attributed the deaths of the three beheaded civilians to an airstrike.

"Simply ludicrous. It is fairly easy to tell who was killed by being cut with a blade and who was blown up"

Not so - muslim tradition dictates the bodies be buried immediately, often before any sort of investigation or blame can be determinied. The body-count in Iraq has been notably inaccurate because of this.

The Taliban have no absolutely scruples, unlike the NATO forces fighting them. They pruposely hide with innocents, often forcing them to shelter them in order to confuse or even pre-meditate higher civilian casualties to pin on NATO and the US.

Madverts,

Inasmuch as people who sign on to the occupation of a country subsequent to a voluntary invasion can have scruples, that's pretty much true.

Is it occupation when the state you invade is a failed one?

Not so - muslim tradition dictates the bodies be buried immediately..

Not quite right. Muslims strive to bury the dead as soon as practicably possible. This, more often than not, does not mean immediately. Autopsies can be and are quite often performed -- and it is not against Islam. There is also some time involved in preparation of the body as well as the burial site. Therefore, this flies in the face of the statement that anything is "dictated" in this regard. As likely as not, local customs and traditions will prevail.

Also, there appear to be few qualms about exhumation in order to investigate cause of death.

For a group without scruples, the Taliban really does appear to be attracting a growing number of followers who are very devoutly religious. I suspect when you are limited in the technology available to you, and your chances of dying are very high, the lengths you will go to to try to strike blows against your enemy will be more extreme.

On the other hand, what you seem to be saying is that the forces fighting the Taliban don't seem to have too many qualms about striking innocents in order to get at the Taliban. Otherwise the Taliban could not "pre-meditate" such casualties. From their point of view, it is understandable how the Afghan who cooperates with those whom the Taliban considers the enemy would not be regarded as completely "innocent."

All I'm saying is that the Taiban have no qualms hiding in villages that may or may not agree with their cause - which is convert to their radical brand of Islam, or die.

From the documentaries with inbedded reporters that I've seen on the ground in Afghanistan, this is a repeated problem for NATO forces as they do seem to be making efforts to avoid cilvillian casualities, depsite what the radical left think.

"Is it occupation when the state you invade is a failed one?"

Yes.

Next question....

adaydream: Afghanistan is in the shape because george bush pulled troops out bof Afghanistan and went to Iraq to start a war based on lies.

I agree with you on so much. But I have to say that Afghanistan is in its current shape because its Afghanistan, and populated by Afghanis. Even without Iraq the situation would be near as bad. We might have bin Laden, but that is about all I could have ever expected or even bothered to hope to gain.

teleprompter at 02:01 AM JST - 6th May Bring the troops home.

Nice going telepromter, but why dont you elaborate on why and how the troops should be brought home. Do you think the invasion by bush was a mistake now? Or do you think the US has just lost…

teleprompter,

It's occupation when you say a state is a failed state in order to invade it.

So far, Obama's speeches can be summarized to three contents:

Bush was wrong (including everything related to Bush). America was wrong (even arrogant!), and he is sorry for it to the world. Hardship and tough things ahead in the future, but I am the One. Obama did not know that he pointed three fingers to himself in the first place. America is not perfect, but arrogant? I wonder if Obama is.

Of course he is arrogant, Bgood. All people who believe they can change things around are arrogant.