"Collateral" Women And Children: Airstrike Kills 76 Civilians In Afghanistan

When you're busy exporting "democracy", this sort of thing happens from time to time.

Coalition air strikes kill 76 Afghan civilians: government

KABUL, Aug 22 (AFP) - An operation by international forces in western Afghanistan Friday killed 76 civilians, most of them women and children, the Afghan interior ministry said, announcing it had opened an investigation into the incident.

Military spokesmen call it "collateral damage", which is sufficiently vague to cover all manner of atrocities. And I use the word "cover" advisedly.

Since the dead people were not legitimate military targets, it would have been a war crime to obliterate them on purpose. So the word "collateral" -- literally: "off to the side" -- in this instance is probably supposed to mean "unintended". And the implication is meant to be, "Oops!" In other words, that's how they keep the killers out of prison.

On the other hand, "collateral" can also mean "off to the side" as in "subordinate" or "meaningless". So when we hear the deaths of innocent foreigners described as "collateral damage", the message is effectively, "It doesn't matter; get used to it". In other words, "... or you could be next!"

But when the citizens of an occupied country strike against the occupying foreigners, that's called "terrorism".

“In its struggle against terrorism, France has just been hard hit,” Mr. Sarkozy said in a statement. He arrived in Kabul on Wednesday, according to Reuters, a trip he made to reassure French troops that “France is at their side.”

But Mr. Sarkozy said France would not be deterred from its Afghan mission, where 3,000 troops are serving in a NATO force of more than 40,000 soldiers from nearly 40 nations.

“My determination is intact,” he said. “France is committed to pursuing the struggle against terrorism, for democracy and for freedom. This is a just cause; it is an honor for France and for its army to defend it.”

Barack Obama wants to end the war in Iraq, as he explained in the New York Times last month, in a piece called "My Plan for Iraq".

He wants to do this by moving the war to Afghanistan. And for once he's speaking clearly about it:

I believed it was a grave mistake to allow ourselves to be distracted from the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban by invading a country that posed no imminent threat and had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. Since then, more than 4,000 Americans have died and we have spent nearly $1 trillion. Our military is overstretched. Nearly every threat we face — from Afghanistan to Al Qaeda to Iran — has grown.
...

Ending the war [in Iraq] is essential to meeting our broader strategic goals, starting in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the Taliban is resurgent and Al Qaeda has a safe haven. Iraq is not the central front in the war on terrorism, and it never has been. As Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently pointed out, we won’t have sufficient resources to finish the job in Afghanistan until we reduce our commitment to Iraq.

As president, I would pursue a new strategy, and begin by providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our effort in Afghanistan. We need more troops, more helicopters ...

... and more collateral damage, too.

Let me tell you, brother,
You can't have one without the other!

~~~

UPDATE: The Americans are denying everything, of course. According to the AP, they say they killed 30 militants -- and no civilians.

And according to The Independent, the coalition of the killing can't get their story straight:

the coalition denied killing civilians. It said 30 militants had been killed ...

A spokesman for the defence ministry in Kabul said US special forces and Afghan troops had struck against a commander named Mullah Sidiq. "Twenty-five Taliban were killed, including Sidiq and another commander," said a spokesman General Zaher Azimi. "Five civilians were killed."

But a statement from the Interior Ministry told a different tale:

"Seventy-six civilians, most of them women and children, were martyred today in a coalition forces operation in Herat province," the statement said.

Coalition forces bombarded the Azizabad area of Shindand district in Herat province on Friday afternoon, the ministry said. Nineteen victims were women, seven were men, and the rest were children under 15, it said.

The AP ran a photo [republished here] which purports to show the arms and ammunition recovered from the scene after the "30 militants" were killed. Count the rifles: one, two, three, four, five. This in a country where virtually every adult male carries a Kalashnikov. An impressive haul, indeed.

Given the track records of the parties involved, I'm not thinking about changing my headline.

Care to comment on this post? If so, click here and join the Winter Patriot community.

France Onboard For War Against Iran; Congress Cheers!

More ugly (but not unexpected) news from the BBC:

French President Nicolas Sarkozy has told the US Congress it can count on France's support against terrorism in Afghanistan and Iran's nuclear plan.

He received a standing ovation during the first address by a French president to both houses in more than a decade.

The French leader, who is on his first official visit to Washington, will later hold talks with President George Bush at Mount Vernon, near Washington.

They are expected to discuss Iraq, Iran and other Middle Eastern issues.

In his address through a translator to Congress, Mr Sarkozy drew applause from lawmakers when he stressed: "France is the friend of the United States of America."

Who is Sarko kidding? Friends don't let friends drive drunk. Why would friends help friends start wars?

Bring Back Freedom Fries: France Rejoins The Axis Of Evil

"Results" from the French presidential "election" are in and once again the Fascist takeover of Paris has been bloodless.

ABC News got the headline just about right with "Pro-U.S. Candidate Wins French Presidency", but they fell into the mud with the sub-head: "Conservative Nicolas Sarkozy Triumphs over Socialist Challenger" Note the tone of the opening few paragraphs:

Tonight Nicolas Sarkozy's "motorcade" looked more pop star than presidential. With the results just in announcing him the winner of the France's toughly-contested run-off for president, Sarkozy took a victory lap around Paris. The paparazzi did their best to keep up.

Sarkozy's route took him past the Arc de Triomphe and up the Champs-Elysees, right past the Elysee Palace, France's White House, where he will take up residence in 10 days time. All the while, scooters and motorcycles gave chase carrying France's famously aggressive photographers.

Without saying anything blatantly rude, David Wright manages to evoke Pythonesque revulsion: So the victors celebrated like cheese-eating pig-dogs? What else did we expect? We wave our private parts in their general direction!

But it comes as no surprise that Wright veers off in a different direction, landing in the mud again, stuck singing the lines we've come to expect of our so-called "mainstream" media.

Sarkozy's commanding victory is a strong mandate for change. The central theme of his campaign was "la rupture" -- a clean break with the past.

He is vowing to shake things up here.

Aha! So this is the new standard, apparently.

If you're a imperialist warmonger with globalist or tyrannical tendencies, the so-called news media are happy to call you a conservative, in which case 51% is considered a solid victory. And 53% is a landslide -- a solid mandate for radical change, or, if the incumbent wins, an "accountability moment" bestowing "political capital" on the winner.

It doesn't matter if the "election" is completely unverifiable, run on hackable machines which favor one candidate over the other, and it doesn't matter if the "final result" cannot be confirmed in any way. The reported numbers are sufficient, and the mandate for radical change is empowered, and that's the way it is, in bushzarro world, where people shall not have the power to influence their very own futures, especially if they happen to live in a democracy.

And that's why it was ok that the media coverage of the campaign was one-sidedly ruthless, with the so-called news media sharing every trivial detail of Ségolène Royal's allegedly private life, while refusing to report anything about Sarkozy's personal life, which appears to be in shambles!

If all this reminds you of John Kerry, the supposedly opposition candidate who tried to outflank Bush on the right[!] while being ripped mercilessly for his service service in combat, while W got a free pass after apparently going AWOL from the National Guard, then you may understand French better than you think.

And as you've probably guessed by now, this Sarkozy fellow is dangerous:

Sarkozy has dreamt his whole life of this moment. A former interior minister under French President Jacques Chirac, Sarkozy has long held ambitions to lead his country. He may be short in stature -- about the size of Napoleon Bonaparte -- but he is known here as a tough leader, a force to be reckoned with.

And guess what? His opponent was dangerous too, what we might call a "right-of-center socialist" -- something like Hillary Clinton with good hair, if you get my drift. Roundly supported by people whose interests she apparently has no interest in serving, purportedly reviled by those who share her beliefs to a remarkable and frightening extent, and yada yada...

So for all intents and purposes, even though this is a very damaging loss, and even though it reeks of a fish-market, the general drift of France toward tyranny was established long before the French "electoral process" produced the final pair of presidential "candidates".

Very sad, but apparently quite true, my friends.

And the average French voters have no idea what's hit them.

Most of them probably don't even know that they've been hit!