Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Military medics try to keep Afghan boy alive

page: 1
13
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+2 more 
posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 05:30 PM
link   
news.yahoo.com...

How come if this article was titled, "US troops shoot civilians", some posters here on ATS would be saddling up their high horse and adding their two cents on how bad US/NATO forces are?

But here's a story where those same forces are saving the life of a kid, no questions asked. Yet on ATS, you only hear crickets.




posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 06:07 PM
link   
jerico........

If the criminal U.S. military wasn't illegally occupying that country, that boy would not have been shot in the first place...

Military industrial-congressional complex = DEATH



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by jerico65
 


Haven't you heard?

Disasters, blood and guts, that's the stuff that makes headlines.

Touchy feel-good stories, who cares?



Thanks for posting this. We spend so much time hearing the negatives, reading posts that demonize the soldiers, etc. It's really refreshing to see the good news now and then. S&F from me.



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 06:23 PM
link   
This kid took a 7.62 to the chest and kept rockin.
Good for the troops.
This is part of what they do, but nobody likes to look at this side.

great story



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 06:26 PM
link   
Almost got sucked into a rant to the self hating American poster above but I resisted. Our soldiers are fine examples of what we are trying to do over there. Good job guys



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 06:30 PM
link   
The boy may have been hit by the US military. They dont know who fired the shot.

That said, good for them for helping. But isnt that what a mission to 'spread freedom' is supposed to do?



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
The boy may have been hit by the US military. They dont know who fired the shot.

That said, good for them for helping. But isnt that what a mission to 'spread freedom' is supposed to do?


And he might have been hit by the Taliban (remember, AKs use 7.62), but I really don't see them rushing to the aid of this kid.



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by jerico65

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
The boy may have been hit by the US military. They dont know who fired the shot.

That said, good for them for helping. But isnt that what a mission to 'spread freedom' is supposed to do?


And he might have been hit by the Taliban (remember, AKs use 7.62), but I really don't see them rushing to the aid of this kid.


Ill give you that.

Of course, we are the invading force....but hey, we'll just shrug that fact off....

and let's not consider that the boy was BROUGHT to the troops, probably because they actually have functioning medical equipment...

[edit on 17-2-2010 by captaintyinknots]



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by rainfall
jerico........

If the criminal U.S. military wasn't illegally occupying that country, that boy would not have been shot in the first place...

Military industrial-congressional complex = DEATH


And maybe the kid wouldn't have been shot if the Taliban didn't use civilians as human shields.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by jerico65

Originally posted by rainfall
jerico........

If the criminal U.S. military wasn't illegally occupying that country, that boy would not have been shot in the first place...

Military industrial-congressional complex = DEATH


And maybe the kid wouldn't have been shot if the Taliban didn't use civilians as human shields.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


this is a garbage deflection.

Human shields are not a new tactic, have been used by nearly every country on earth, and dont explain the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of Iraqi civilians killed.

What are they using human shields to protect themselves from, I have to ask?



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by jerico65
 


Well constructed OP. If people argue with it, or make a comment that is not "go Team America," then its the evil ATS and the hatred for America.

Wonderful to see that a child hurt in a war was given medical care by members of the military involved in battle. The "side" of the military is irrelevant, though, and pretty damn poor to use it and I'm quite sure that the upstanding military members wouldn't care too much for their act of kindness to be turned into a political "slap" in the face of those that don't tow a single party line.

Protecting our freedoms abroad, and used as political fodder back home. Disgusting.



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by jerico65


And maybe the kid wouldn't have been shot if the Taliban didn't use civilians as human shields.


And maybe the taliban wouldn't have to use civilians as human shields if the criminal U.S. military wasn't occupying their country...




[edit on 17-2-2010 by rainfall]



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 07:06 PM
link   
What I want to know is why this has made news? Believe it or not our troops are dealing with this type of scenario on a weekly (if not daily) basis, particularly in the more remote FOBs.

The FOB doc with his merry band of nurses and medics routinely deal with civillian casualties. The locals know that we're not going to shoot them up and that the RAP (Regimental Aid Post) has plenty of med kit to deal with trauma.

As an aside, we also deal with plenty of Taliban casualties when we find them. They are triaged according to their wounds and not which side they fight for. Once they are fit enough they are taken for a little chat with the G2 boys over some tea and biccies. Enemy dead are dropped off at a pre-arranged contact point to allow the Taliban to collect them and sort them out according to their religious beliefs.

Our wounded, if captured, are not treated quite so well as I'm sure you can imagine.

Civillian casualties are caused by both sides of the conflict. The Taliban cause casualties by indiscriminate fire during attacks and by the less than useful markings they place on IEDs and mines that the kids get f***** up by. We cause them by engaging embedded forces who are using civillian abodes as firing points. We try to avoid these incidents as much as possible, going so far as to give up the initiative and withdrawing rather than risk civillian casualties. Unfortunately these measures don't always work.



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by rainfall
And maybe the taliban wouldn't have to use civilians as human shields if the criminal U.S. military wasn't occupying their country.


Rainfall, you'd be pissing in your pants with wild glee if this was somehow blamed on US troops.

But it's OK with you if innocent civilians are murdered by Taliban, right? The Laws of armed conflict aren't to be followed by them, yet the US forces having to cross every "T" and dot every "I".



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
this is a garbage deflection.

Human shields are not a new tactic, have been used by nearly every country on earth, and dont explain the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of Iraqi civilians killed.


So, since they have been used in the past, it's OK to use them now? Get a grip!!

Google "LOAC" and read up on it. This is what's being followed by US troops, and NOT by the Taliban.

"Hundreds of thousands" of Iraqis. Well, at least it's not the three million some rocket scientist said in another thread.
You do realize, tho, that the insurgents kill more civilians by setting off car bombs, etc, in crowded markets?



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by PaddyInf
 



Good post, Paddy. Thanks for the info. Sounds like what US forces are doing, too.



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by rainfall

Originally posted by jerico65


And maybe the kid wouldn't have been shot if the Taliban didn't use civilians as human shields.


And maybe the taliban wouldn't have to use civilians as human shields if the criminal U.S. military wasn't occupying their country...




[edit on 17-2-2010 by rainfall]


Lucky for you that YOU are located in Central Florida in the good ol' US of A, or likely you would have been rounded up by now for posting some of the things you do. Like they do in iran for example if they catch you saying nasty things against the government.

[edit on 2/17/2010 by centurion1211]



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by rainfall
And maybe the taliban wouldn't have to use civilians as human shields if the criminal U.S. military wasn't occupying their country...



Pop Quiz Sweetheart....

Who actually kicked the Taliban to the curb?

Oh Yeah the Northern Alliance

The United Islamic Front for the Salvation of Afghanistan (UIF, Jabha-yi Muttahid-i Islami-yi Milli bara-yi Nijat-i Afghanistan), more commonly known as the Northern Alliance, was a military-political umbrella organization created by the Islamic State of Afghanistan in 1996. The organization united various Afghan groups fighting against each other to fight the Taliban instead.

In late 2001, with assistance from U.S. air support and special forces assistance, the UIF succeeded in retaking most of Afghanistan from the Taliban. Despite fears of a return to the chaos similar to that of the Afghan Civil War (1992-1996), the UIF factions largely accepted the new order.


So according to them we were invited by the other Afghans which were recognized internationally as the legitimate Government. There is a lot of history there.




Although recognised by most foreign nations as the legal government, it only controlled up to 30% of the country. President Burhanuddin Rabbani was the national head of the United Islamic Front, however the central government had little power and personnel changes were frequent.

The exception to this was the post of Defence Minister, which was held by Ahmed Shah Massoud and Mohammed Fahim. Before the 9/11 attacks; Russia, China, the Central Asian nations of the Commonwealth of Independent States, India, Turkey and Iran were giving aid to UIF. However Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the UAE were supporting the Taliban.



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by rainfall
 



And maybe the taliban wouldn't have to use civilians as human shields if the criminal U.S. military wasn't occupying their country...


Yea, I'm sure the civilians enjoyed the abuse and torture the Taliban dished out pre US involvement.



Lord help you if the place you live at in Florida gets hit by a natural disaster and the military has to come in to help save your butt. I just don't think you could handle the embarrassment of being saved by those whom you condemn so much.



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 08:55 PM
link   
I can't speak for why others do not jump on these types of threads with the vigor they do when it is a civiilian wounded, i can only speak for myself.

as for me, i view ATS as a good place to present alternative views, and i can turn on any major news network (MSNBC or Fox) and find feel good stroies about us soldiers in Afghanistan, because both sides support that war.

since they present only one side, i generally look to see the other side on this alternative website!

additionally, it seems like you made up your mind about how much support pro-us soldier stories get before you even posted the thread, because the majority of the large number of posts you have already received are supportive.





new topics

top topics



 
13
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join