Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

NATO strike kills eight

page: 1
3

log in

join

posted on May, 27 2012 @ 10:38 AM
link   
Once again more senseless killing of civilians from a NATO airstrike. It's amazing that with all of our hi-tech surveillance equipment mistakes like this continue to happen. WTH? It's no wonder we're hated across the globe. We're from the government and we're here to help, yeah right.

www.smh.com.au...




posted on May, 27 2012 @ 01:29 PM
link   
They are talking about civilians being killed by 'rebels' who are actually terrorists. But when they do the killing not one peep. CNNs ratings are very low and people are tired and sick of the war. You can even see on some of CNNs comments that people are not falling for the propaganda.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   
its called collateral damage, regrettable but it happens. I don’t care how much technology you have or how advanced your military force is in a combat zone within a civilian population against an enemy who often pose as civilians, the innocent will die. It might not make it right but it is a harsh reality of war that sometimes good people die.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 01:51 PM
link   
Perhaps they should stop cowardly hiding behind civvies?

Oh, but then that would stop numpty armchair lefty generals making judgements and siding with the enemy like the traitors they are..
edit on 27-5-2012 by EvanB because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
its called collateral damage, regrettable but it happens. I don’t care how much technology you have or how advanced your military force is in a combat zone within a civilian population against an enemy who often pose as civilians, the innocent will die. It might not make it right but it is a harsh reality of war that sometimes good people die.


interesting. i really would like you to comment on that again when members of your family or close friends become "collateral damage". would you still say that sacrificing innocent civilians just to kill a few enemies is just a regettable fact we have to accept?



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by EvanB
 


This coming from you, the supreme keyboard warrior, with your "macho" avatar.

You have the gall to call people traitors...I don't think you know the meaning of the word.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


As reprehensible as this act is, I do have to agree.

It's just sometimes I think they aren't concerned about civilian casualties at all.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by digitaltruth
 





would you still say that sacrificing innocent civilians just to kill a few enemies is just a regettable fact we have to accept?


Nope not atoll, actually that is a rather silly question in my view but to answer you.

I would be screaming for revenge, looking for a public enquiry eventually leading to criminal prosecutions that would have all of those involved in my families deaths right up the chain of command being sentenced to death. That is assuming I don’t get to them first, because then I would do my best to deliver that judgment myself, without the jury.

However that is only because I would then personally involved, right now I can be very objective on how I view this. What I have said is correct, collateral damage is an inevitability of this type of warfare. The benefit of being entirely non-bias when looking at a story like this is that I can pass a rational judgement that is free from bias. If I were to be personally involved in such a tragedy then I would lose that benefit.

I am sorry if you find my views on this difficult or cold but they are not going to change.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Kram09
 




sometimes I think they aren't concerned about civilian casualties at all.


And I would like to be the first to agree with you on that!

I often get this impression with the so called “Drone Wars” it appears at time that the need to protect innocent civilians is counter balanced by the perceived need naturalise a potential terrorist target. I sometimes feel like the view taken by some in the military and in the upper echelons of government is that a level of collateral damage is acceptable, although I think collateral damage in a inevitability, it should never be accepted and every reasonable measures should be taken to reduce it. I fear that more often than not these measures to protect innocent civilians are not taken.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kram09
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


As reprehensible as this act is, I do have to agree.

It's just sometimes I think they aren't concerned about civilian casualties at all.

That's the problem I have with it. A complete lack of regard for innocent human life. I know there is always collateral damage in war but six kids, mom and dad at this point in time:pus:
We need to get the hell out of there!



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
They are talking about civilians being killed by 'rebels' who are actually terrorists. But when they do the killing not one peep. CNNs ratings are very low and people are tired and sick of the war. You can even see on some of CNNs comments that people are not falling for the propaganda.

Yes, It's always about propaganda. We haven't been told the truth since this mess started. Who knows the real story here but knowing our track record over there, I don't put anything past them anymore. A large majority of the time they don't know who the enemy is anyway. It's the "screw it kill em all" mentality that disgust me.



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 03:02 PM
link   
it really doesn't help any when someone will help you on monday, shooting at you on tuesday, and trying to help you again wednesday.



posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 03:08 PM
link   
Is this the kind of intervention and saving civilians we are talking about in Syria?



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 

Absolutely true, you can't blaime nato for all the bad people they try to kill who are driving fear in the world. If there is a better solution maybe that should be the conversation.



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Robert80
 


Can I ask you to please elaborate on that comment, I am sensing your being sarcastic but I would appreciate it if you could expand on your comment and I will happily discus my views with you.






top topics



 
3

log in

join