Pentagon's story now is that it killed 12 Afghan civilians in order to save civilians

[bigtree]

from Chris Floyd: http://www.chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/1-latest-news/1927-all-systems-go-no-disfunction-in-profitable-afghan-enterprise.html


All Systems Go: No Disfunction in Profitable Afghan Enterprise

Wednesday, 17 February 2010

A fresh dispatch from the imperial satrapy of Bactria brings word that the Pentagon has ended the eyeblink-brief "suspension" of one of its super-duper missile systems following the "unfortunate" slaughter of 12 civilians, including five children, in the opening hours of the all-out media blitz -- sorry, the "largest military operation of the Afghan war" -- now being inflicted on the city of Marja.

As you'll recall, after this initial child sacrifice to waft the pleasing smell of innocent blood to great Ares, that he might smile upon the bold Achaeans in their martial endeavor, mighty Agamemnon himself -- now robed in the flesh of General Stanley "Black Ops" McChrystal -- stepped forth before the cameras, and with great show of crocodilian regret, declared that the "errant" missile system would be withdrawn from battle forthwith, until such time as it could be determined why it killed all those civilians and, worst of all, gummed up the glowing press which the Pentagon had painstakingly cultivated during the run-up to the attack.

But as the ever-astute Jason Ditz at Antiwar.com notes, the Pentagon concluded its in-depth investigation of the incident in a matter of hours. What's more, the brass found that not only was there no error whatsoever in the hi-tech death-hurling technology, but also that the whole incident was actually the result of the heroic efforts of a clean-limbed young Leatherneck to save the cowering civilians in his tender care.

Yes, that's right. The Pentagon's story now is that it killed 12 civilians in order to save civilians. As Reuters reports: (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE61F4NG20100216)


"We know now that the missile arrived at the target it was supposed to arrive at. It wasn't a rogue missile. There was no technical fault in it," Major General Nick Carter, the British commander of NATO forces in southern Afghanistan told reporters ... A young U.S. Marine Corps officer in charge in the area where the rockets were fired was protecting a number of civilians behind his positions, Carter said.


And so he called in the missile strike on the house, because, as another occupation spokesman put it: "It is not unusual for the insurgents to operate in compounds where there are civilians sheltering."

So you kill civilians in order to protect civilians . . .

read more: http://www.chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/1-latest-news/1927-all-systems-go-no-disfunction-in-profitable-afghan-enterprise.html

[gratuitous]

1. Is there anybody here

Who wouldn't mind a murder by another name?

[bigtree]

3. there are bystanders here

. . . but too few willing to stand up as witnesses.

[Echo In Light]

2. You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs

[bigtree]

5. .

[M155Y_A1CH]

4. Orwell would be proud n/t

:kick:

[bigtree]

6. interesting

from 'Orwell in Tribune: 'As I Please' and Other Writings 1943-7' : http://www.dissentmagazine.org/democratiya/article.php?article=150


In the 'Tribune' columns George Orwell wrote, he conducted a running row with the readers about their humanitarian objections to the RAF killing women and children in bombing campaign against German cities . . .

‘Why is it worse to kill civilians than soldiers?’’ he asked. Every time a German submarine goes to the bottom about fifty young men of fine physique and good nerves are suffocated. Yet people who would hold up their hands at the very words ‘civilian bombing ’ will repeat with satisfaction such phrases as ‘We are winning the Battle of the Atlantic.’ Heaven knows how many people our blitz on Germany and the occupied countries has killed and will kill, but you can be quite certain it will never come anywhere near the slaughter that has happened on the Russian front.

After receiving a ‘number of letters, some of them quite violent ones ’ he continued: Contrary to what some of my correspondents seem to think, I have no enthusiasm for air raids, either ours or the enemy’s. Like a lot of other people in this country, I am growing definitely tired of bombs. But I do object to the hypocrisy of accepting force as an instrument while squealing against this or that individual weapon, or of denouncing war while wanting to preserve the kind of society that makes war inevitable.

[WinkyDink]

8. Because civilians neither declare nor put on the uniforms of war, maybe?

Yes, death is death, if that is his ultimately useless argument. And we shuld not have bombed Dresden. But really, stopping Fascism wasn't worth war?

[bigtree]

9. from the article: 'Printing a writer’s every word isn’t always a kindness . . .

. . . and not all Orwell pieces stand the test of time – or even the test of his own time.'

[Amonester]

13. We didn't stop Fascism.

Fascism just moved across the pond to the Republican Party's leadership, think tanks, corporations & supporters, which in turn is 'influencing' many so called Dems who wear blue-dog costumes.

[WinkyDink]

7. It is against the Geneva Conv. to use civilian areas to harbor troops. It is equally so to BOMB THEM

WE ARE EVIL.

WHY ARE WE IN AFGHANISTAN, AGAIN? NINE-ELEVEN? I DON'T THINK SO. CHENEY'S NATURAL-GAS LINES AND POPPY FIELDS, MAYBE?

[bigtree]

10. Protocol 1

Additional to the Geneva Conventions, 1977

http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-proto.htm

PART IV: CIVILIAN POPULATION
Section 1: General Protection Against Effects of Hostilities

Article 51: Protection of the Civilian Population

1. The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations. To give effect to this protection, the following rules, which are additional to other applicable rules of international law, shall be observed in all circumstances.

2. The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.

3. Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this Section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.

4. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are:

a. those which are not directed at a specific military objective;

b. those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or

c. those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol; and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.

5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate:

a. an attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as
a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects; and

b. an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

6. Attacks against the civilian population or civilians by way of reprisals are prohibited.

7. The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favor or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations.

8. Any violation of these prohibitions shall not release the Parties to the conflict from their legal obligations with respect to the civilian population and civilians, including the obligation to take the precautionary measures provided for in Article 57. (http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-proto.htm#a57 )

Article 57: Precautions in Attack

1. In the conduct of military operations, constant care shall be taken to spare the civilian population, civilians and civilian objects.

2. With respect to attacks, the following precautions shall be taken:

a. those who plan or decide upon an attack shall:

i. do everything feasible to verify that the objectives to be attacked are neither civilians nor civilian objects and are not subject to special protection but are military objectives within the meaning of paragraph 2 of Article 52 and that it is not prohibited by the provisions of this Protocol to attack them;

ii. take all feasible precautions in the choice of means and methods of attack with a view to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects;

iii. refrain from deciding to launch any attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated;

b. an attack shall be canceled or suspended if it becomes apparent that the objective is not a military one or is subject to special protection or that the attack may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated;

c. effective advance warning shall be given of attacks which may affect the civilian population, unless circumstances do not pemmit.

3. When a choice is possible between several military objectives for obtaining a similar military advantage, the objective to be selected shall be that the attack on which may be expected to cause the least danger to civilian lives and to civilian objects.

4. In the conduct of military operations at sea or in the air, each Party to the conflict shall, in conformity with its rights and duties under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, take all reasonable precautions to avoid losses of civilian lives and damage to civilian objects

5. No provision of this article may be construed as authorizing any attacks against the civilian population, civilians or civilian objects.

[bigtree]

11. .

[malaise]

12. Shaking head

not knowing whether to laugh, cry or bang head on the wall.

[bigtree]

14. stress reduction kit

[bigtree]

15. .

[rug]

16. The war was escalated to bring peace.

[bigtree]

17. 'the war is merely an imposture'

The war, therefore, if we judge it by the standards of previous wars, is merely an imposture. It is like the battles between certain ruminant animals whose horns are set at such an angle that they are incapable of hurting one another. But though it is unreal it is not meaningless. It eats up the surplus of consumable goods, and it helps to preserve the special mental atmosphere that a hierarchical society needs. War, it will be seen, is now a purely internal affair. In the past, the ruling groups of all countries, although they might recognize their common interest and therefore limit the destructiveness of war, did fight against one another, and the victor always plundered the vanquished. In our own day they are not fighting against one another at all. The war is waged by each ruling group against its own subjects, and the object of the war is not to make or prevent conquests of territory, but to keep the structure of society intact. The very word "war," therefore, has become misleading. It would probably be accurate to say that by becoming continuous war has ceased to exist. The peculiar pressure that it exerted on human beings between the Neolithic Age and the early twentieth century has disappeared and has been replaced by something quite different. The effect would be much the same if the three superstates, instead of fighting one another, should agree to live in perpetual peace, each inviolate within its own boundaries. For in that case each would still be a self-contained universe, freed forever from the sobering influence of external danger. A peace that was truly permanent would be the same as a permanent war. This -- although the vast majority of Party members understand it only in a shallower sense -- is the inner meaning of the Party slogan: WAR IS PEACE.

-Orwell, 1984

[rug]

19. Thanks I didn't remember the whole passage.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

18. Rather confused article.

It seems to be arguing that U.S. forces are intentionally trying to kill civilians. You would think that if the U.S. were intentionally trying to kill civilians, it would have killed more given the major military offensive. Except, it's not a major military offensive, according to the story, but just a media blitz, in which case we don't have to care about any civilians in danger.

[bigtree]

20. I read it as the U.S. led forces are indifferent to the killing of whoever is left in the village

. . . they're attacking. Their attitude is that they've given notice of their arrival and that any and all left in the village (civilians and combatants alike) are justly subject to the consequences and effects of their invasion. Oh, and we really 'regret' the civilian deaths we cause with our assault.

Nothing 'confusing' about the Reuters report and the statements of the NATO and U.S. officials responding to the outcry from Afghans in the way of their assault.

[Canuckistanian]

21. "We had to destroy the village in order to save it."

Shades of Bến Tre, Vietnam.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%E1%BA%BFn_Tre

[bigtree]

22. General McChrystal in a softened and more politically correct rendition of the Vietnam-era rational

"We deeply regret this tragic loss of life. The current operation in central Helmand is aimed at restoring security and stability to this vital area of Afghanistan. It's regrettable that in the course of our joint efforts, innocent lives were lost."

U.S. media reports have been filled with similar statements from commanders in Afghanistan and Iraq over the past eight years. Though such rhetoric soothes the nerves of many Americans and stiffens U.S. resolve to destroy terrorist elements that hide out in villages, the plain truth is that Afghan civilians have been killed by U.S. and NATO troops time and time again over the course of the war. That the civilian population will now miraculously support the war effort is beyond the bounds of reasonable thought.

http://www.rferl.org/content/What_Does_Victory_In_Marjah_Mean/1960600.html

[eppur_se_muova]

23. I remember that quote well.

But, of course, there is absolutely no parallel to be drawn between Afghanistan and Vietnam.
























:sarcasm: