Can someone qualify this statement even through a conspiracy theory? It's lie, utter lie. Even the western medias/governments never claimed such. US / coalition killings are 200 times more than the taliban killing civilians. I'm not saying from any web source, it's from the country itself. Please don't manufacture lies, if you have some source of information or if you are on ground, please reffer to that.

Here brother nu001 read this article, Afghanistan is crying out loud that they want Invading forces to be kicked out.

Pentagon paints bleak picture of Afghanistan war as more civilians die

A Pentagon report on Afghanistan war paints a grim picture after nine years of war, with a sharp increase in attacks on occupation troops and scarce support for the corrupt US-backed puppet regime of President Hamid Karzai. Meanwhile a series of incidents in which civilians were killed by US and NATO troops has unleashed renewed popular anger against the foreign occupation.

Afghans protest after civilians killed by US attack

A semi-annual report released by the Pentagon on the Afghanistan war recorded a sharp increase in attacks on occupation troops and scarce support for the corrupt US-backed puppet regime of President Hamid Karzai.

The progress report, mandated by the US Congress, presented a grim picture of the state of the nearly nine-year-old, US-led war, even as a series of incidents in which civilians were killed by US and NATO troops unleashed renewed popular anger against the foreign occupation.

The Obama administration�s dispatch of 50,000 more US troops to Afghanistan over the past year notwithstanding, the 150-page Pentagon report allowed that the country�s so-called insurgents considered 2009 their "most successful year," and that the resistance to the occupation had a "robust means of sustaining its operation."

Resistance

"Its operational capabilities and organizational reach are qualitatively and geographically expanding," the report said, citing the spread of resistance activity to several new areas over the last six months.

Violence in the country, according to the report, had increased by a staggering 87 percent between February 2009 and March of this year. Pentagon officials attributed the spike to the deployment of the additional troops in areas that have been strongholds of the Taliban and other groups opposed to the US presence.

Equally revealing is the report�s estimate of support for the Karzai government based upon its assessment of opinion in 92 districts. It found that not one district supported the US-backed regime. Forty-four districts were described as neutral and 48 as supportive of or sympathetic to the resistance, a significant increase over the 33 described as backing the anti-occupation fighters in December of last year.

It further acknowledged that the "strength and ability of shadow governance [by the Taliban and other anti-government groups] to discredit the authority and legitimacy of the Afghan government is increasing."

The report gives rather short shrift to the decisive issue of civilian casualties in Afghanistan, devoting just two paragraphs to claiming that the number of civilians killed by US-led troops has fallen in relation to the size of the occupation forces, and blaming the resistance for "using civilians as human shields."

Civilians killed

The McClatchy news agency, however, cited the military�s own figures indicating "a dramatic spike in civilian deaths in the first three months of this year." It reported that the Pentagon acknowledges that US-led forces killed 87 civilians in Afghanistan during that period, compared to 29 during the first quarter of 2009.

These figures are undoubtedly a gross underestimation of the real toll inflicted by US and other foreign occupation forces, given that the Pentagon and NATO routinely deny reports of civilian casualties, claiming that either it has no knowledge of the incidents or that those killed were "insurgents." Grudging admissions come only after undeniable proof that the victims were civilians is confirmed by Afghan authorities.

A series of recent incidents has underscored the grim and rising toll that the US-led occupation is inflicting upon the Afghan people.

Two women and a young girl were killed, and two others were wounded when NATO troops opened fire April 30 on a car in the southern Afghan city of Kandahar.

A spokesman for the Afghan authorities said that the occupation troops were defusing a roadside bomb when the car approached and failed to halt after a warning shot.

Witnesses to the incident disputed this version, however, saying that the foreign troops were conducting house-to-house raids in the area and opened fire on the vehicle without any warning.

The killings came a day after angry demonstrators took to the streets throughout eastern Nangarhar province to protest a Wednesday night raid on the home of an Afghan lawmaker in which US troops shot her brother-in-law dead.

The legislator, Safiya Sidiqi, was not at home during the raid. She said that her brother-in-law, who was visiting, thought the compound was being attacked by bandits and left his room with an old hunting rifle, when he was cut down by US troops.

Enemy of women

"I was afraid of Taliban, and now I can say the Americans are the enemy of the women of Afghanistan," she said.

The top US commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, had announced orders last January restricting night raids because of the high number of civilian casualties that they have inflicted. Under the new rules of engagement, Afghan puppet forces were supposedly to take the lead when houses were entered.

The US military claimed that the operation was aimed at catching a "Taliban facilitator" in the area, but no such person was apprehended.

The incident confirmed charges that McChrystal�s earlier order was for show, and that the night raids and their attendant slaughter of innocents continue unabated.

In a separate development, the French military acknowledged Thursday that its troops had killed four children in an April 6 missile attack.

Warnings from top US and NATO officials suggest that the bloodletting will escalate sharply in the coming weeks and months.

Gen. David Petraeus, the head of the US Central Command, which is responsible for the wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq, warned that there would be "tough moments in the weeks and months ahead" in the city of Kandahar, where the US-led occupation is mobilizing some 23,000 troops for an offensive expected to begin next month.

Excusing in advance the carnage that this US-led offensive will entail, he claimed that it would be the fault of the Afghan resistance, which he said was "going to take horrific actions to disrupt the progress that Afghan and coalition and military elements are working so hard to achieve."

Concern over rising violence in the city as well as the urban combat that the occupation�s offensive will entail, the United Nations shut down its Kandahar headquarters and withdrew its entire staff from the city.

Petraeus appeared to be providing another justification for the coming bloodshed, claiming that Kandahar was the city in which the terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington were prepared in 2001.

A similar note was sounded by NATO�s senior civilian official in Afghanistan, Mark Sedwill, the former British ambassador to the country. He warned that the coming period would be "very tough" for the occupation forces and insisted, "We cannot allow judgment of success to be the absence of casualties."

Sedwill predicted that the US-led forces would be involved for up to four more years in combat operations in Afghanistan and would remain in the country for up to 15 years more training and "mentoring" Afghan puppet forces.

The military "surge" ordered by Obama is expected to be in complete by August, with some 100,000 US troops deployed in Afghanistan, up from 32,000 when he took office.

The message contained in the Pentagon�s grim report, however, appears to be that US military commanders want still more American soldiers and Marines thrown into the colonial-style war.

The day after Barack Obama said the United States is doing everything possible to avoid killing "somebody who's not on the battlefield", yet more slaughter of Afghan civilians by NATO forces brought hundreds of protestors onto the streets.

Afghan protestors burn US flag after civilians killed

One person has been shot dead by police as hundreds of protesters took to the streets in eastern Afghanistan, accusing Nato-led forces of killing civilians during an overnight raid near the city of Jalalabad. 

Angry Afghans set fire to tyres and blocked roads in the Surkh Road district of Nangahar province on Friday, demanding an explanation for the deaths.

Witnesses told Al Jazeera that between nine and 15 civilians had been killed in the Nato attack.  

Mohammed Arish, a government administrator in Surkh Rod, said a father and his four sons and four members of another family were among the dead.

"They are farmers. They are innocent. They are not insurgents or militants," Arish told The Associated Press by phone.

Arish said the protesters had tried to march toward the provincial capital of Jalalabad before being turned back by police.

The Nangahar governor's office said at least three people were injured during a clash with police.

'Taliban firefight'

A Nato spokesman confirmed foreign and Afghan forces had conducted some operations in the area but said he was not aware of any civilian deaths and the alliance was checking the incident.

"Nato and Isaf said they were targeting Taliban sub-commanders and some fighters which their intelligence said were hiding in a compound outside a village."

Colonel Wayne Shanks said eight Taliban fighters were killed in a firefight, adding that fighters fired rocket-propelled grenades at Nato forces.

Two other people were captured during the operation, and weapons and communications gear were confiscated at the targeted compound, Shanks said.

Al Jazeera's Hoda Abdel Hamid reporting from Kabul said international forces and Afghan troops were flown to the area by helicopters overnight and carried out the raid.

"According to a Nato and Isaf [International Security Assistance Force] statement they were targeting Taliban sub-commanders and some fighters which their intelligence said were hiding in a compound outside a village.

"But the villagers said none of those killed had anything to do with the Taliban, that all of them were innocent civilians and members of two different families."

Sensitive issue

Civilian deaths at the hands of US and Nato forces are a highly sensitive issue in Afghanistan.

Last year public outrage over such deaths led General Stanley McChrystal, the Nato commander, to tighten the rules on combat if civilians are at risk.

He also ordered allied forces to avoid night raids when possible and bring Afghan troops with them if they do enter homes after dark.

Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president, discussed the issue in meetings with US officials in Washington this week. He has previously sought a complete ban on night raids.

"Civilian casualties is not only a political problem ... I don't want civilian casualties," Barack Obama, the US president, said on Wednesday after meeting Karzai. 

"I take no pleasure in reading a report where there is a civilian casualty. That's not why I am president, that's not why I am commander in chief."

Last year was the deadliest for Afghan civilians since the war started in 2001, according to the United Nations.

Afghan officials say about 170 Afghan civilians were killed between the months of March and April this year alone, an increase of 33 per cent compared to the same period last year.

Umm Hufsah wrote: My answer is in the questions i have asked, if you want to understand them.

Unfortunately, these threads sink when self-hating islamists cannot combat the irrefutable argument that the United States has demonstrated restraint. You have no counter to the fact that the US has spent billions upon billions of dollars to develop LESS cost effective weapons for the sole purpose of reducing civilian casualties. You say nothing of the recognized capability of US strategic forces to reduce fundamentalist Islam to a burning pile of ash within one hour with almost no reduction of our nation power, and the restraint from using such power demonstrated by our leaders.

You cannot reconcile the fact that you say we only go to war because we wish to have their oil when you know for a fact that sending them a bribe under the table would have accomplished the very same at much less financial and political cost.

You cannot reconcile the fact that you argue we wish to murder and kill and intimidate Afghanis with the truth that you cannot conjure up a reason for such action, much less an explanation for precision munitions development, reduced use of particularly effective cluster, mine and incendiary munitions, and extremely tight Rules of Engagement for US forces in battle zones.

And when someone brings up these irreconcilable faults in your arguments, you point to a link about something entirely unrelated, try to make a statement accusing Americans broadly of ignorance or being beholden to the media that is considerably less controlled than in almost any other nation in the world, or simply ignore it and let the thread sink.

Reconcile these issues. Now. Or stop posting these nonsensical messages.

Answer now, how you can say that we WISH to have civilian casualties when we have spent many times the GDP of these nations we are invading on weapons that limit such casualties.

Answer now, how can you say that we wish for war for oil when documents prove that those who gave much less to Iraq during the oil-for-food plan were granted royal sums of oil - when you know it would have been infinitely cheaper to just pay them off for our economic gain, reconcile why we did not.

Or, if you feel too threatened, just make a statement about the Jews controlling the media and go back to your cliff's notes to Hitler�s Mein Kampf.

Gen. Stanley McChrystal in Afghanistan � �reducing civilian casualties, even at the cost of greater risk to one's own troops � will be an important part of maintaining the support of the local population in future military engagements.�

"The fear was that if we withdraw from Afghanistan there will be civil war and external great powers will take sides. Is that worse than losing American soldiers day after day?�

http://stopwar.org.uk/content/view/1890/1/ - Well, not in my opinion.  I say pull out and use CIA Drone resources to support the Afghan government and fight �bad� Taliban and Al Qaeda.

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.

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?

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?"

Umm Hufsah wrote: 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.

Not surprisingly, with all of your earlier false claims being exposed as falsehoods, you have decided to move on to copying and pasting from your usual tabloid propaganda site �infowars�. You know, one of the downsides to the web is that it can become a playground for conspiracy theorists and other, how shall we say� "less than discriminating" types who scour the web in feverish attempts to find something, anything to support a conspiracy. I recognized your copying and pasting from infowars. It�s one of the  ultra-leftist internet based tabloids. Do yourself a favor, dear, don't make your posts a total joke by linking to a website run by a bunch of frothing-at-the-mouth Stalinist wannabes.

Ultimately, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are about people being given the opportunity to determine their own fate, their own future. It shouldn�t be about the irrational contentions of the rulers-for-life, embittered islamist utopians (mullahs, self-hating islamists and islamist ideologues), who are willing to ally themselves with fascist and supremacist ideologies if it will serve their partisan agenda. The abovementioned thugs are ready to throw every ounce of fear, intimidation and callous hatred they have at everyday people who are risking life and limb to eke out a living. Self-hating islamists are looking to preserve the status quo of fear and oppression that many people would hope to eradicate. Why would anyone want to side with such vicious, ruthless Autocrats?

The Islamist agenda is crystal clear on what Islam's mission and goals are. Why aren't we? Are we so complacent in the assumption that everyone must respect the rule of law, equality, plurality, and other benefits of liberal democracy, that we are unable to conceive of entire cultures holding such concepts in utter contempt? The teachings of the koran, the sunnah, and shari'ah law are absolutely hostile to precepts of personal freedom. That's why the ruling mullahs, your Taliban heroes and the other brutish islamists you are flailing your pom-poms for will beat to a pulp and jail those who challenge their fascist agenda.

Islamic fear societies are increasingly crushed under their own dead weight of untenable claims of inerrancy and the maddening frustration that comes of its failure, which only becomes more apparent with the passage of time. Under rule of law with representative elections, the spirit of Democracy is forever born anew, able to adapt to changing times, to help shape those times and help make sense of them.

"The teachings of the koran, the sunnah, and shari'ah law are absolutely hostile to precepts of personal freedom."

Wow, �sigh�; truly rhetoric has consequences.  The very teachings of Quran, Sunnah, and Shariah are the reasons why Muslims fight against Al Qaeda�s narrative, and  that America is anti-Islam and hates Muslims.   America is fighting a war against radical political islamist who use terror as a means to political goals.  To hold that Islam is against personal freedom only unwittingly supports the narrative from Jihadis that America is at war with Islam.  This is not the position of the American government.

To hold that Islam is against personal freedom by extension would mean all religions are against personal freedom.   Most Muslims want neither total theocracy nor a purely secular democracy and are happy where religious principles and democratic values coexist. 

abuayisha wrote: "The teachings of the koran, the sunnah, and shari'ah law are absolutely hostile to precepts of personal freedom."   Wow, �sigh�; truly rhetoric has consequences.  The very teachings of Quran, Sunnah, and Shariah are the reasons why Muslims fight against Al Qaeda�s narrative, and  that America is anti-Islam and hates Muslims.   America is fighting a war against radical political islamist who use terror as a means to political goals.  To hold that Islam is against personal freedom only unwittingly supports the narrative from Jihadis that America is at war with Islam.  This is not the position of the American government.

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.

To hold that Islam is against personal freedom by extension would mean all religions are against personal freedom.   Most Muslims want neither total theocracy nor a purely secular democracy and are happy where religious principles and democratic values coexist.

Yeah, I love it.  This is a DOD photo, so the weapon is not unattended.

Boomer wrote: Hayfa wrote: You know it is sad this war. The people are really sweet. I felt quite nurtured over there. They'd help you in any way they could. Too bad there are not just US people over there to learn and exchange ideas. There are not "just US people over there".  The NATO coalition consists of forces from (including but not limited to):   United States � 62,415 United Kingdom � 10,200 Germany � 4,665 France � 3,750 Italy � 3,300 Canada � 2,830 Poland � 2,515 Netherlands � 1,885 Australia � 1,550

German President Quits Over Remarks on his Military presence in Afghanistan sounding like an idiot / fascist!/moron "that German soldiers serving in Afghanistan or with other peacekeeping missions were deployed to protect German economic interests."

100729-F-7552L-258. Tribal elders of Zer-e-koh valley pose for a photo with U.S. Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the commander of International Security Assistance Force, during a shura in the Herat province of Afghanistan July 29, 2010. (U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Bradley Lail/Released)