Report: U.N. backed Congolese troops killing civilians , page 1
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times
Topic started on 14-12-2009 @ 06:17 PM by djvexd

Report: U.N. backed Congolese troops killing civilians


news.yahoo.com
Human Rights Watch said it had documented "vicious and widespread" attacks against civilians by soldiers and rebels between January and September. Soldiers being fed and supplied with ammunition by the United Nations have killed civilians, gang-raped girls and cut the heads off some young men they accuse of being rebels or supporting the enemy, groups said.

"For every rebel combatant disarmed, one civilian has been killed, seven women and girls have been raped, six houses have been burned and destroyed and 900 people have been forced to flee their homes," British-based organization Oxfa
(visit the link for the full news article)


reply posted on 14-12-2009 @ 08:20 PM by wiredamerican
reply to post by djvexd





Soldiers being fed and supplied with ammunition by the United Nations have killed civilians


My logic tells me that the civilians would have been killed regardless if ammunition was present or not. It is not the ammunition that kills people it is the person pulling the trigger.

If no ammunition was present I suspect they would have been beaten or stabbed to death.

So another take on it would be, maybe the UN was trying to be humane and let the civilians die by bullet rather than knife/club. I have heard it is more humane to kill with a bullet than a knife or club because a bullet will usually cause less suffering.

This story can go very deep if one looks far into the hole.
Pages:     ^^TOP^^



Russian scientists reach buried Antarctic Lake Vostok
  Posted 3 days ago with 81 member flags
Monsanto quits as GM results announced (EUROPE)
  Posted 4 days ago with 72 member flags
Strange noises reported around North Battleford
  Posted 15 days ago with 67 member flags
Ayatollah: Kill all Jews, annihilate Israel
  Posted 3 days ago with 48 member flags
Is it morally wrong to take a life? Not really, say bioethicists
  Posted 10 days ago with 37 member flags