"If there is more than one or two instances of intentional civilian killing, than please list some sources (other than al-Jazeera) "

I didn't give you al-Jazeera. But yeah I know an independent media outlet from US ally Qatar is too "biased" for the US, which is why we bombed them. Unless the media openly cheerleads for war and waves little American flags in the corner it won't be acceptable to you.

Obviously, children gathering firewood can easily be confused for terrorists when you're engaged in cowardly, murderous aerial bombing.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/02/AR2011030201939.html

I'm sure you'll dismiss this as an "irrelevant mistake".

"We are in Afghanistan to kill or capture the men responsible for 9/11, their comrades, and people who support them. We are preventing civilian deaths. American civilian deaths. "

By creating Al Qaeda outposts all around the region and in Europe. We're still allies with the Islamist government in Sarajevo that not only gave the 9-11 masterminds citizenship but continues to harbor Al Qaeda members. Additionally, Bush said finding Bin Laden was "not a concern". So come up with some new propaganda.

"Who the hell are you calling a coward?"

The US and their NATO allies for attacking civilians from the safety of the sky and then claiming that the innocents that they kill are all "accidents". The military strategists do this purposely, knowing full well aerial strikes mean more Afghan civilians killed by fewer US military lost. Incidentally, Gates denies the Taliban have stinger missiles, and you can count on one hand the number if aircraft that have been shot down by the Taliban.

"Besides, at least America has the balls to try to win in a country where many other nations have failed."

Yeah, it takes "balls" to outnumber a ragtag disorganized military force by a score of 12:1 in a poor, underdeveloped country, while you have the combined military might of the entire western world. Yeah, if I looked up courage in the dictionary, that's an example I'd find.

"We are preventing civilian deaths. American civilian deaths. "

That's the key phrase isn't it. Afghan lives are worthless. So we're killing thousands of Afghan civilians in order to "prevent" American civilian deaths half a world away because 2800 of them died in 2001 thanks to our friendship with Islamist militants throughout the 1990s. Meanwhile we can't even evacuate American cities facing the threat of natural disasters properly because our equipment was in Afghanistan and Iraq, so much for our concern with American lives.

Gunfighter... you are making Americans look terrible in this thread. Please stop embarrassing us and go to bed.

@ darwyn

How the hell do you think the Taliban gets funded? They may have opposed the opium trade when they were in power, but now it serves as their monetary lifeblood.

@ Putin33

I will dismiss that as an irrelevant mistake. It sucks for those nine Afghan children and their families, but shit happens in war. Whenever you drop a bomb, launch a missile, or fire an artillery shell, there is a distinct possibility that the bomb, missile, or artillery shell will go somewhere where you do not want it to go.

We have troops on the ground that are most certainly not in the (relative) safety of the sky. If we were so cowardly, then we would have zero casualties. The terrorists sneak around planting IEDs like a bunch of scared little girls. How's that for cowardice?

The United States government's first priority is to protect the lives, liberty, and property of its citizens. If the US government has to kill some non-Americans to reach that goal, what is so evil about that? As far as the US government as concerned, an American citizen's life is more important than the life of any non-American citizen.

According to the UN, opium production in Afghanistan in 2001 (prior to the war) was at 185 tons, a historic low. There had been a 94% reduction in the opium trade. Since the war, opium has skyrocketed.

""Turning first to drug control, I had expected to concentrate my remarks on the implications of the Taliban's ban on opium poppy cultivation in areas under their control... We now have the results of our annual ground survey of poppy cultivation in Afghanistan. This year's production [2001] is around 185 tons. This is down from the 3300 tons last year [2000], a decrease of over 94 per cent. Compared to the record harvest of 4700 tons two years ago, the decrease is well over 97 per cent.

Any decrease in illicit cultivation is welcomed, especially in cases like this when no displacement, locally or in other countries, took place to weaken the achievement" (Remarks on behalf of UNODC Executive Director at the UN General Assembly, Oct 2001, http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/speech_2001-10-12_1.html"

The Taliban prohibition had indeed caused "the beginning of a heroin shortage in Europe by the end of 2001", as acknowledged by the UNODC.

According to this report - the Afghan farmer gets very little of the enormous profits that go to the international opium dealers.

http://www.unodc.org/pdf/publications/afg_opium_economy_www.pdf

Based on recent figures (2003), drug trafficking constitutes "the third biggest global commodity in cash terms after oil and the arms trade." (The Independent, 29 February 2004).

Moreover, the above figures including those on money laundering, confirm that the bulk of the revenues associated with the global trade in narcotics are not appropriated by terrorist groups and warlords, as suggested by the UNODC report.

"We have troops on the ground that are most certainly not in the (relative) safety of the sky. If we were so cowardly, then we would have zero casualties. The terrorists sneak around planting IEDs like a bunch of scared little girls. How's that for cowardice?"

Aerial bombardment has produced over 80% of the Afghan civilian casualties that were caused by NATO/government forces. You have choices in war. Choices are knowingly made which lead to more civilian deaths. NATO would prefer to have more Afghan civilians die than dare risk their own forces getting killed. This is very definition of cowardice. You cannot deny this with your glib "shit happens" defense.

"If the US government has to kill some non-Americans to reach that goal, what is so evil about that?"

What's so evil about killing thousands of Afghan civilians including women and children in a war of aggression in order to defend against a group that we're helping to support around the world? That's the very definition of evil.

And if you don't care about non-American lives, then why should the Taliban (or anybody else) have given a damn about the twin towers being destroyed?

"If the US government has to kill some non-Americans to reach that goal, what is so evil about that?"

In and of itself that's not evil. War is a terrible thing where people die and things are broken. Hopefully there is a greater good that is achieved. However, in Afghanistan we've reached a point of diminishing returns. I see no reason that we need to spend another decade or more in that godforsaken wilderness of mountains and deserts to chase after large groups of bandits and small remnants of the old al Qaeda command structure. The 2014 date of "withdrawal" (which will still mean bases at least) can't come soon enough.

Let's spend the money used to virtually terraform the feudal realm of Afghanistan to improve the United States (or, more urgently, Mexico). I'm not Little Englander or isolationist, I just can't see why we need the commitment in Afghanistan to look the way it does.

@ Putin33

Your statistic that 80% of all civilian casualties is unsurprising. The pilot often cannot tell the cowboys from the indians.

Yes, we have a choice to use air support or send in the ground troops. If we're pretty sure that a target is hostile, why would we send in the ground troops? By the time the troops got there, the possible threat would be gone. It is more effective to eliminate the possible threat with an airstrike. However, there is a possibility of collateral damage.

"And if you don't care about non-American lives, then why should the Taliban (or anybody else) have given a damn about the twin towers being destroyed?"

The Taliban did not give a damn about the Twin Towers. That is why they went to the trouble of destroying them.

@ Invictus

"I see no reason that we need to spend another decade or more in that godforsaken wilderness of mountains and deserts to chase after large groups of bandits and small remnants of the old al Qaeda command structure."

The Taliban and al-Qaeda are not a bunch of bandits. They are a band of cowardly terrorists hell-bent on destroying America. We have to take the fight to them before they attack us again. How many more 9/11s do we have to endure before we come down on al-Qaeda like the wrath of God? That is the reason for our presence in Afghanistan.

There are over 100,000 Americans in Afghanistan right now. The pentagon officially estimates the number of al-Qaida operatives at less than 150. We are trying to get rid of a mosquito problem with shotguns.

"The Taliban did not give a damn about the Twin Towers. That is why they went to the trouble of destroying them. "

Way to miss the point. According to your logic the Taliban is justified in killing American civilians because Americans like you don't give a damn if they live or die.

"If we're pretty sure that a target is hostile"

Just like we were 'pretty sure' those kids gathering firewood were terrorists. Oh well, I suppose when making decisions about life and death - "pretty sure" is a good standard eh?

"By the time the troops got there, the possible threat would be gone. It is more effective to eliminate the possible threat with an airstrike. However, there is a possibility of collateral damage. "

Stop pretending that the scale of collateral damage is inevitable. It is a direct consequence of our cowardly military strategy. What the hell are the 100,000+ troops doing there that they can't quickly mobilize to where threats are located without the use of air power? Playing cards on their army bases in Herat where nothing is going on?

Gunfighter your comments make me sick to my stomach. That kind of attitude is exactly why friendly fire against my countrymen is so prevalent and infuriating. That kind of arrogance is exactly why the rest of the world hates your country so much. And that kind of ignorance is exactly why I'd kick the living shit out of you given half the chance.

Your country is rotting from the inside out because of its libido for war and I hope I live to see the day it falls from power.

Well, looks like we got osama.

You're speculating on the "we" part a bit much eh?

No, I'm pretty sure I'm American. I've got a birth certificate.

I meant you're speculating on the circumstances of his supposed death, including how he might have died and who might have killed him.

Oh, well I don't care who killed him, but I assume we have the body, otherwise it wouldn't justify the press conference.

And what if he was shot in front of witnesses by an American or its allies? Without giving him a trial? Or what if he was shot by his subordinate wanting to take power and achieve greater violence? Or what if he just died of health issues?

These details matter. And you should care.

Well sure, but that's just ridiculous speculation. The important part right now is that the man responsible for planning the most devastating terrorist attack ever on American soil is dead.

You do realise that whilst he did laugh and commend the attacks on 9/11 and said he knew they were coming, he denied responsibility and was surprised at their "success?" Yes he was a prominent financier of terrorism and responsible for creating the organisation that eventually became the world's biggest terrorist group. Yes he was responsible for many acts of terrorism. But he didn't necessarily pull the trigger on the world trade towers.

Actually, he admitted on tape to ordering the attack. Back in 2004.

Why order it but then deny it publicly for three years, only to claim credit just before a close US presidential election? I've never put too much faith in those tapes.