In every war its important to consider the strategy like why a war is being actually fought? and what result is it seeking? How long it will go on? what is end result of one actions etc, in that respect US strategy is as I explained before is utterly flawed, if it can't stop itself from murdering civilians whether deliberately or not, than its no different from its enemy, US might as well join them.  However its obvious that US won't do that because it won't have any reason to stay in Afghanistan would it? If US is fighting war in Afghanistan to protect Afghans from Talibans then its responsible for every innocent person dying at their own hands. It can't turn a blind eye to the endless innocent people dying in this war for nothing and keep carry on pointlessly.

Its easy for US to say oops we didn't mean to but let the civilians die as long as we get what we want - to kill Talibans or whatever the reason, we can't do any thing about it because its war, it's perfectly normal that civilians are dying and then carry on causing more innocent people to lose lives in this war that US refuses to end.

So, when its about taking sides with civilians being murdered and asking to stop the war,  every thing is exaggerated but when its about US endlessly war mongering and keep on attacking one country after another on basis of endless excuses, every thing is perfectly believable, is it?

Would you be alright if 1000's of Americans civilians including women and children were dying in a war year after year, fought for whatever reason by what ever strategy would you not want that war to end so innocent people stop getting hurt.

I'm sure that soldiers are provided with protocols but tell me if that protocol did any good in preventing a collateral murders from accuring? in this video:


http://stopwar.org.uk/content/view/1826/27/

Light 'em all up! The true face of US 'liberation'

The video released by Wikileaks showing airmen in US helicopters slaughtering Iraqi civilians with unrestrained glee, is shocking enough in itself, but it is only unique in the footage we can now watch and hear, which makes the atrocity irrefutable, unlike the countless occassions when Iraqis -- and Afghans -- have reported equivalent atrocities and were ignored.

The Reuters photographer we see being killed so casually in the film, Namir Noor-Eldeen, did not live there, but went to cover a story, risking his life at a time when most western journalists were imbedded with the military. Noor-Eldeen was 22 (he must have felt extremely proud to be working for Reuters) and single. His driver Saeed Chmagh, who is also seen being killed, was 40 and married. He left behind a widow and four children, adding to the millions of Iraqi widows and orphans.

Witnesses to the slaughter reported the harrowing details in 2007, but they had to wait for a western whistleblower to hand over a video before anyone listened. Watching the video, my first impression was, I have no impression. But the total numbness gradually grows into a now familiar anger. I listen to the excited voices of death coming from the sky, enjoying the chase and killing. I whisper: do they think they are God?

"Light 'em all up!" one shooter says.

"Ah, yeah, look at those dead ******s. Nice," says another.

"Well, it's their fault bringing their kids into the battle," one says when ground troops discover two children among the wounded.

The war US is fighting is destructive not constructive, have a look at this report Iraq's progress has gone downwards not upowards because of the war:
stopwar.org.uk

Has the US/UK invasion liberated the women of Iraq?

The US/UK invasion and occupation of Iraq has been catastrophic for the Iraqi people. But has it brought Iraqi women the liberation that George Bush and Tony Blair promised? Surely their conditions are better now than they were under Saddam Hussein?

---

By Abdu Rahman and Dahr Jamail
AntiWar.com
14 March 2010

---

BAGHDAD – Under Saddam Hussein, women in government got a year’s maternity leave; that is now cut to six months. Under the Personal Status Law in force since Jul. 14, 1958, when Iraqis overthrew the British-installed monarchy, Iraqi women had most of the rights that Western women do.

Now they have Article 2 of the Constitution: "Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source of legislation." Sub-head A says "No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam." Under this Article the interpretation of women’s rights is left to religious leaders – and many of them are under Iranian influence. 

"The U.S. occupation has decided to let go of women’s rights," Yanar Mohammed, who campaigns for women’s rights in Iraq, says. "Political Islamic groups have taken southern Iraq, are fully in power there, and are using the financial support of Iran to recruit troops and allies. The financial and political support from Iran is why the Iraqis in the south accept this, not because the Iraqi people want Islamic law." 

With the new law has come the new lawlessness. Nora Hamaid, 30, a graduate from Baghdad University, has now given up the career she dreamt of. "I completed my studies before the invaders arrived because there was good security and I could freely go to university," Hamaid tells IPS. Now she says she cannot even move around freely, and worries for her children every day. "I mean every day, from when they depart to when they return from school, for fear of abductions."

There is 25-percent representation for women in parliament, but Sabria says "these women from party lists stand up to defend their party in the parliament, not for women’s rights." For women in Iraq, the invasion is not over. 

The situation for Iraq’s women reflects the overall situation: everyone is affected by lack of security and lack of infrastructure. 

"The status of women here is linked to the general situation," Maha Sabria, professor of political science at Al-Nahrain University in Baghdad tells IPS. "The violation of women’s rights was part of the violation of the rights of all Iraqis." But, she said, "women bear a double burden under occupation because we have lost a lot of freedom because of it. 

Abductions

"More men are now under the weight of detention, so now women bear the entire burden of the family and are obliged to provide full support to the families and children. At the same time women do not have freedom of movement because of the deteriorated security conditions and because of abductions of women and children by criminal gangs." 

Women, she says, are also now under pressure to marry young in family hope that a husband will bring security. 

Sabria tells IPS that the abduction of women "did not exist prior to the occupation. We find that women lost their right to learn and their right to a free and normal life, so Iraqi women are struggling with oppression and denial of all their rights, more than ever before." 

Yanar Mohammed believes the constitution neither protects women nor ensures their basic rights. She blames the United States for abdicating its responsibility to help develop a pluralistic democracy in Iraq. 

"The real ruler in Iraq now is the rule of old traditions and tribal, backward laws," Sabria says. "The biggest problem is that more women in Iraq are unaware of their rights because of the backwardness and ignorance prevailing in Iraqi society today." 

Many women have fled Iraq because their husband was arbitrarily arrested by occupation forces or government security personnel, says Sabria. 

Displaced

More than four million Iraqis were estimated to have been displaced through the occupation, including approximately 2.8 million internally. The rest live as refugees mainly in neighboring countries, according to a report by Elizabeth Ferris, co-director of the Brookings Institution-University of Bern Project on Internal Displacement.

The report, titled, "Going Home? Prospects and Pitfalls For Large-Scale Return Of Iraqis," says most displaced Iraqi women are reluctant to return home because of continuing uncertainties. 

The Washington-based Refugees International (RI) says in a report "Iraqi Refugees: Women’s Rights and Security Critical to Returns" that "Iraqi women will resist returning home, even if conditions improve in Iraq, if there is no focus on securing their rights as women and assuring their personal security and their families’ well-being."

The RI report covered internally displaced women in Iraq’s semi-autonomous northern Kurdish region and female refugees in Syria. "Not one woman interviewed by RI indicated her intention to return," the report says. 

"This tent is more comfortable than a palace in Baghdad; my family is safe here," a displaced woman in northern Iraq told RI. 

The situation continues to be challenging for women within Iraq. 

"I am an employee, and everyday go to my work place, and the biggest challenge for me and all the suffering Iraqis is the roads are closed and you feel you are a person without rights, without respect," a 35-year-old government employee, who asked to be referred to as Iman, told IPS.

"To what extent has this improved my security?" she asked. "We have better salaries now, but how can women live with no security? How can we enjoy our rights if there is no safe place to go, for rest and recreation and living?"

 

Edited by Umm Hufsah - 26 May 2010 at 6:53am

Hufsah I think I'm done here. I understand your point and agree with some of the things you've said but since you seem to prefer to only hear your voice I will bow out. This is going to turn into a discussion where people *****and moan.

You see, I can always google pictures and read articles about "collateral casualties" and I can always fault some things people do but an ultimate slap in the face to me is responding to me with long winded post of copy and paste pictures.

I guess me telling you that I have friends who serve who gave me some knowledge of US military protocol was not good enough I see.

Edited by Gibbs - 26 May 2010 at 7:19am

I think we are in Afghanistan for a bit of side reason. Since the Us returned the cultivation of the poppy is abound. Where is this going? To Russian and China.

I don't at all agree with the war but I do agree with Gibbs that the soldiers do have protocals.

Martha you mentioned about "human shields": these people LIVE in the villages. Where do you expect them to live? 

And you mention its coward to "use women and children as human shields.. I would agree is that is the intention.. but do we know? AND is it not cowardly to fire on those same women and children?

And having read alot on war it does tend to blend what is a "civilian" and what is a "soldier." People don't have a "uniform" to tell the difference.

Rhetoric surely does have consequences as does ignoring events around us. The very teachings you described above are what give traction to islamic terrorism. Isn't it funny how we see all these islamist "victims" running around with machine guns, complaining of discrimination, whining about being unfairly accused of terrorist bombings, and warning their enemies of the innocent civilians that would be killed in a military reprisal? They justify their murderous acts by claiming to be oppressed by non-Muslims. But if they were truly fighting oppression, they would surely lash out at their own oppressive governments first. On the contrary; they seem to be doing their oppressive government's bidding. When terrorists are given the chance to run their own governments, the first thing they do is lock down their society, remove all human rights, and oppress everyone within their borders with intolerable religious laws and vicious, cruel, and ruthless enforcement. It's no accident that these patterns are seen over and over again; it's a well-thought-out, effective strategy, and it will continue to succeed unless and until their lies are exposed. These are not random acts perpetrated by insane criminals; they are deliberately orchestrated by well-organized, deeply religious, petrol-funded terrorist organizations, many of whom operate under the guise of Islamic "charities" and receive direct aid from Arab governments and oil companies.

I see a flaw with your proposed “extension”. There’s no reason to believe that one necessarily implies the other. Christianity, as we know, met with reform and enlightenment (and bea in mind that I hold no religion). In short, it grew up, and became a positive force for civilization and progress worldwide. In fact, it was instrumental in shaping social climate which fostered the freedoms, science, and prosperity of Western civilization. Islam, on the other hand, has not managed a similar enlightenment and reformation. Islam's holy warriors, united under their ersatz Saladin, Osama bin Laden, still fancy themselves to be fighting the Christian invaders in the name of their deity. To this day, the wounded adolescent pride of the holy warriors is still seething for revenge. In God's name, of course.

I have no reason to believe that you speak for most muslims regarding what they want or don’t want. What we can demonstrate, however, is that there is this peculiar propensity for a crushing theocracy to take hold wherever muslims gain strength of numbers.