Military medics try to keep Afghan boy alive

reply to post by rainfall


Yep, just another reminded that the Taliban are using innocent women and children as human shields. Thanks for bringing that to the attention of the people here on ATS; more need to know what the Taliban are actually doing in A-stan!

reply to post by jerico65


We have already proven her wrong plenty of times, yet she keeps coming up with outlandish stuff... God love the first amendment

I find these kind of posts interesting.The truth is ignorance caused this boy to be shot in the first place just as ignorance let Korea,Vietnam,and the rest of our wars since ww2 happen.What ignorance is that?It's the ignorance of not knowing or not caring about the constitution.Every soldier swears an oath to this document how many of these do you suppose actually know what it says.
The constitution is the corner stone our once great country sits upon.Politicos also swear an oath to uphold and protect it then try to rip it up.When this country begins to hang a few of these politicians for treason maybe our government will straighten out however I won't be holding my breath.I have no problem with soldiers as our educational system has all but deleted what should be required understanding of the constitution.I would however give the top military officals a nice trial for high crimes and treason as they also swore an oath.If all our soldiers were to understand the document the promised to protect and uphold the warring would end tomorrow and they would not have to try and save the next child.

Originally posted by jerico65

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
I already quoted the post I was referring to, quit trying to deflect

No, you didn't. You just lied and think that everyone is to believe it. Get your act together before you post your lies next time, and maybe you won't get caught so easy.

You are a no-go at this station.

Just sad. You really need me to quote it again?

Ill give you one thing though, you do run the deflection playbook well.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Just sad. You really need me to quote it again?

Yes, find the exact quote in this thread, since you haven't yet.

I know you can't, because you're lying.

Originally posted by jerico65

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Just sad. You really need me to quote it again?

Yes, find the exact quote in this thread, since you haven't yet.

I know you can't, because you're lying.

Since twice apparently isnt enough, here ya go again.

In response to my commenting on the killing of civilians by troops, you said, and I quote:
You do realize, tho, that the insurgents kill more civilians by setting off car bombs, etc, in crowded markets?

Also, are you going to answer the question of whether or not you are okay with troops participating in a firefight in a civilian zone? You've been dodging it for a while now....

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
In response to my commenting on the killing of civilians by troops, you said, and I quote:
You do realize, tho, that the insurgents kill more civilians by setting off car bombs, etc, in crowded markets?

And somehow, you came to the conclusion that by that comment, I was saying it was OK for US troops to kill civilians?

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Also, are you going to answer the question of whether or not you are okay with troops participating in a firefight in a civilian zone? You've been dodging it for a while now....

And what do you think? Obviously, it's not OK to have a firefight in a built up area. And if you did a bit of research, you'd see that Gen McChrystal has made the ROE more restrictive to reduce just that.

Probably is, the Taliban know that, and have a funny habit of engaging US/NATO troops while hiding in civilian areas, etc.

Do you think that's OK? You've been dodging that for a while.....

Since it takes a military corpsman to deal with wounded - both military and often times civilian, I'd thought I'd post this as being quite apropos:






[edit on 2/25/2010 by centurion1211]

Originally posted by jerico65

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
In response to my commenting on the killing of civilians by troops, you said, and I quote:
You do realize, tho, that the insurgents kill more civilians by setting off car bombs, etc, in crowded markets?

And somehow, you came to the conclusion that by that comment, I was saying it was OK for US troops to kill civilians?

And what do you think? Obviously, it's not OK to have a firefight in a built up area. And if you did a bit of research, you'd see that Gen McChrystal has made the ROE more restrictive to reduce just that.

Probably is, the Taliban know that, and have a funny habit of engaging US/NATO troops while hiding in civilian areas, etc.

Do you think that's OK? You've been dodging that for a while.....

1)When it is your response to my comment on the amount of civilians killed by american troops, then yes. It is quite obvious that you are using it as a justification/deflection to addressing the point made.
2)I know all about Gen. McC. I know that he has a habit throughout his career of doing things, such as ordering missions that end up in massive civilian casualty, and then apologizing aferward. Afterall, that is FAR easier than making the ethical choice to begin with.
3)I can only answer your question with another question: Would you sit by and not fire upon, say, chinese troops if they were marching down your street, armed, telling you that you either treat them as friends and liberators, or you are an enemy?

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
1)When it is your response to my comment on the amount of civilians killed by american troops, then yes. It is quite obvious that you are using it as a justification/deflection to addressing the point made.

Well, once again, you're a no-go at this station. Is the most exercise you get from jumping to conclusions? I'm still scratching my head trying to figure out how you came to that one.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
2)I know all about Gen. McC. I know that he has a habit throughout his career of doing things, such as ordering missions that end up in massive civilian casualty, and then apologizing aferward. Afterall, that is FAR easier than making the ethical choice to begin with.

And what is the "ethical choice"?

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
3)I can only answer your question with another question: Would you sit by and not fire upon, say, chinese troops if they were marching down your street, armed, telling you that you either treat them as friends and liberators, or you are an enemy?

Yes or no? Is it OK for the Taliban to engage US/NATO forces from the cover of civilian buildings, and using civilians as human shields?

Originally posted by jerico65

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
1)When it is your response to my comment on the amount of civilians killed by american troops, then yes. It is quite obvious that you are using it as a justification/deflection to addressing the point made.

Well, once again, you're a no-go at this station. Is the most exercise you get from jumping to conclusions? I'm still scratching my head trying to figure out how you came to that one.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
2)I know all about Gen. McC. I know that he has a habit throughout his career of doing things, such as ordering missions that end up in massive civilian casualty, and then apologizing aferward. Afterall, that is FAR easier than making the ethical choice to begin with.

And what is the "ethical choice"?

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
3)I can only answer your question with another question: Would you sit by and not fire upon, say, chinese troops if they were marching down your street, armed, telling you that you either treat them as friends and liberators, or you are an enemy?

Yes or no? Is it OK for the Taliban to engage US/NATO forces from the cover of civilian buildings, and using civilians as human shields?

1)You can keep trying. Those that understand the tactic of deflection see exactly what you are doing. It doesnt work on those of us that are intelligent
2)Depends on the situation. Not opening fire in a civilian area would be one. But hey, as long as he apologizes for killing children afterward, i guess its all good.
3)There is no yes or no answer. There is a huge difference between an invading force, and natives defending their home though.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
1)You can keep trying. Those that understand the tactic of deflection see exactly what you are doing. It doesnt work on those of us that are intelligent

Intelligent? I guess that leaves you out. You were openly lying. Give me a break. You accused me of saying it was OK for US troops to use civilians as a human shield, and couldn't pull a direct quote from me out of your ass.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
2)Depends on the situation. Not opening fire in a civilian area would be one. But hey, as long as he apologizes for killing children afterward, i guess its all good.

"Depends on the situation". Lame.

And the Taliban? It's OK for them to use civilians as human shield, right? And I don't see many apologies coming from them when they murder civilians.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
3)There is no yes or no answer. There is a huge difference between an invading force, and natives defending their home though.

Wrong again. There is an yes/no answer to this question; you just don't want to give it.

Originally posted by jerico65

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
1)You can keep trying. Those that understand the tactic of deflection see exactly what you are doing. It doesnt work on those of us that are intelligent

Intelligent? I guess that leaves you out. You were openly lying. Give me a break.

You accused me of saying it was OK for US troops to use civilians as a human shield, and couldn't pull a direct quote from me out of your ass.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
2)Depends on the situation. Not opening fire in a civilian area would be one. But hey, as long as he apologizes for killing children afterward, i guess its all good.

"Depends on the situation". Lame.

And the Taliban? It's OK for them to use civilians as human shield, right? And I don't see many apologies coming from them when they murder civilians.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
3)There is no yes or no answer. There is a huge difference between an invading force, and natives defending their home though.

Wrong again. There is an yes/no answer to this question; you just don't want to give it.

1)Ahh yes, the old 'When caught, resort to personal attacks' tactic. Fantastic. I was wondering when you'd go there.

2)So you think there is a textbook of ethical decisions? Each situation is different.

3)Sorry, just saying "wrong again" doesnt make it so. There is no yes/no to this question. Just as there was no yes/no to the question I asked you. These things arent black and what. And you have effectively proven you only see exactly that.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
1)Ahh yes, the old 'When caught, resort to personal attacks' tactic. Fantastic. I was wondering when you'd go there.

You mean when you were caught lying about something I said. Still haven't found that exact quote from me saying that the US should kill civilians since the Taliban does. And you won't. Liar.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
2)So you think there is a textbook of ethical decisions?

Each situation is different.

Textbook? Nope, but the US does operate under LOAC. Read up on it sometime.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
3)Sorry, just saying "wrong again" doesnt make it so. There is no yes/no to this question. Just as there was no yes/no to the question I asked you. These things arent black and what. And you have effectively proven you only see exactly that.

There is, you just don't want to say it. Is it right for the Taliban to engage US/NATO forces while using civilians as human shields?

LMAO!!!!!!!!!!! I swear the prowar pro US military industrial complex crowd are the biggest hypocrites around. So let me get this straight..........27 Afghan civillians were just killed......women and children...................but the US military is trying to save ONE boy who was shot????????????

Ever heard the phrase one step forward and two steps back? Idiots.

This is why the civilians are being slaughtered over there...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0347b070715b.jpg[/atsimg]

What our children are dying for

Originally posted by rainfall
This is why the civilians are being slaughtered over there...

Yup.
It was growing like mad in the Taliban held territories that were just captured. Can't you see the look of disbelief on the young Britt's face?

reply to post by SLAYER69

The Taliban are accused of using civilians as "human shields" as they battle against a joint Afghan-Nato offensive in Helmand.

I believe we are seeing a form of propaganda here. There are new rules of engagement now, I saw the news brief. Our forces cannot fire on people who are not armed. The Taliban know this and they all walk away from fire fights unscathed. All they have to do is appear to be unarmed.

So you have to ask yourself why they would need human shields? Baffling.

Another Politically Correct War Strategy

McChrystal issued the classified directive -- which isn't very classified -- to garner the support of the Afghan people. Night raids of Afghan homes has created anger against the coalition forces especially the United States. This latest directive was issued amid outrage over recent civilian deaths caused by coalition forces. This latest directive comes on the heels of the release of the U.S. military's revised rules of engagement. U.S. troops involved in President Barack Obama's much-heralded military surge in Afghanistan are complaining about these new rules of engagement to which they must adhere. As a result of alleged killings of innocent civilians by Afghan and NATO troops, the Pentagon has promulgated strict rules that force soldiers and Marines to hold their fire until they are certain the individuals they face are armed. "If a Taliban sniper, who's killed a number of U.S. soldiers or Marines, decides to come out from hiding, all he needs to do is leave his weapon behind and walk out free and clear," said the source who requested anonymity. "It's hard to fight a war like that let alone be victorious," he added.

www.axcessnews.com...

In the news brief that I saw, they showed this very thing happening. The Taliban soldiers simply walk away laughing. So why would they need human shields? It may be that we need an excuse too.

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by rainfall
This is why the civilians are being slaughtered over there...

Yup.
It was growing like mad in the Taliban held territories that were just captured. Can't you see the look of disbelief on the young Britt's face?

Sources please? Which captured territories, when and where? Hectars or acres under production, proof they were being cultivated by Taliban?

This is something called a source.

Correspondent Steve Kroft reports.

Afghanistan is now the world's largest exporter of heroin, and the opium used to produce it, supplying 87 percent of the world market. And it is creating an infrastructure of crime and corruption that threatens the government of President Hamid Karzai.

The heroin trade begins with fields of opium poppies grown in almost every province of Afghanistan. Last year, according to the U.S. state department, 206,000 hectares were cultivated, a half a million acres, producing 4,000 tons of opium, most of which was converted into 400 tons of illegal morphine and heroin in laboratories around the country.
.

Itpressworld

From an actual source we see that the ENTIRE country is under cultivation and not just the recently Taliban liberated territories.

Maybe this is why?

KABUL, Afghanistan — President Hamid Karzai's brother denied Monday that he has ever been involved in Afghanistan's heroin trade, and accused U.S. officials of fabricating allegations to harm the president.
Ahmed Wali Karzai said no one has ever been able to prove that he is involved in drugs.

The issue was revived over the weekend after The New York Times reported that two unnamed U.S. officials said the White House believes Wali Karzai is involved in heroin trafficking.

USA TODAY

Wow is the President of Afghanistan's brother Taliban you think?

reply to post by jerico65


Well hopefully they'll be able to bring some sort of order the the area. As always the weak link seems to be the Afghanistan police. The people simply don't trust them.

n southern Afghanistan, American forces are close to retaking Marjah from the Taliban. The Afghan police force, funded by U.S. and allied forces, must now keep the peace. Mandy Clark reports.