Obama just keeps earning that Nobel Peace Prize

Can Barack Obama turn Afghanistan into more of a charnel house than George Bush ever did?

Yes he can:

Armed violence in Afghanistan exceeded record levels in 2010 leaving catastrophic impacts on civilian Afghan communities, read an Afghanistan Rights Monitor (ARM) annual report on civilian casualties of war in 2010 released today.

From 1 January to 31 December 2010, at least 2,421 civilian Afghans were killed and over 3,270 were injured in conflict-related security incidents across Afghanistan. This means everyday 6-7 noncombatants were killed and 8-9 were wounded in the war.

Armed Opposition Groups (AOGs) were blamed for 63 percent of the total reported civilian deaths); US/NATO forces were accused of 21 percent of the civilian deaths; pro-government Afghan forces (police, army and militias) were accused of 12 percent of the reported deaths; and about 4 percent of the civilian deaths could not be attributed to an identifiable armed group and thus referred to "unknown" in the report. [...]

ARM criticizes the AOGs for their deliberate killing and harassing of civilian communities and the US/NATO for their labeling of almost every war casualty as being "suspected insurgent".

At least this clarifies what Obama meant when he described his Nobel Peace Prize as "a call to action".

PREEMPTIVE STRIKE: The apologist response to this would no doubt be to point out that the "armed opposition groups" are responsible for the bulk of the civilian deaths—which is true, but ignores the rather important question of just who it is they're opposing.  And keep this (PDF) in mind as well:

Although IED attacks [by armed opposition groups] killed  and injured  large numbers  of  pro-government Afghan and foreign  forces, disparity in the numbers of civilian and military victims was  overwhelming.  Too often IEDs  intended for foreign military convoys killed civilian people travelling on the same roads.  In  some cases, even when an IED attack hit  its target, civilians still suffered disproportionally as US/NATO soldiers were shielded by their armored vehicles, vests and other protective covers.

As the Nuremberg Tribunal said, "To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole"—a point that's taken as too obvious to bother mentioning when talking about another country's wars, and too absurd to merit consideration when it's applied to your own.

Comments

[Brian M]

But but but there are TRILLIONS of dollars of rare minerals at stake here! What's a little blood in exchange for all that Tantalum.

[gfod]

Thanks for including the Nuremberg quote. It's all too easy to say "the other guy is worse" so you can turn attention from your own actions.

[anonymous]

The 9/11 truth is out on the internet.
This is the truth - The WTC was destroyed by 3 thermo-nuclear explosions.

http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=625926

http://www.disclose.tv/forum/dimitri-khalezov-wtc-nuclear-demolition-full-playlist-t21675.html

http://www.dkhalezov.com/911thology-dimitri-khalezov-contact-info.html