Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

NATO Helicopter Kills Two Children

page: 2
131
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 




On the specific incident here? I'm going to say we need to know what exactly happened before convicting OR excusing the crew that did it.


If you actually click on the link in my OP and read the article it's all explained.



Was this Helicopter called in by Afghan ground forces?


Once again, it is explained in the article which you obviously didn't read


It mentions a previous attack in February that killed 11 civilians which caused President Hamid Karzai to forbid Afghan units from asking for airstrikes by coalition air forces.


The episode was the second airstrike to kill civilians since General Dunford assumed command in February. In Kunar Province in eastern Afghanistan, up to 11 civilians were killed, including 5 children, when airstrikes were used to destroy two homes.

That attack, which included Afghan forces on the ground, led President Hamid Karzai to forbid Afghan units from asking for airstrikes by coalition air forces. The Afghans have little air ability of their own.


I suggest you actually read the article.
edit on 3/3/2013 by Corruption Exposed because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 10:32 AM
link   
I hate to be the one who says this but the sad fact of war is that collateral damage does happen.

We can all debate until the end of time if the war, any war, is justified but we also have to accept as difficult as it may be and as much as we may disagree with the reasons for war that collateral damage is an evil inevitability. It is sad and heart-breaking but even with all of our technology so long as civilians are present in a theatre of war there will always be collateral damage no matter how advanced the technology may be. Furthermore when fighting an asymmetrical war where the enemy hides amounts civilian populations the risk of collateral damage is only multiplied. I think we often forget that, we presume that with our spectacular technology that such horrible accidents can never happen but the sad truth is that we can only ever minimise the risk not remove it.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 




I hate to be the one who says this but the sad fact of war is that collateral damage does happen.


I have accidentally called this conflict a war several times, but in reality it is an invasion of a foreign country based on lies and deceit. It's not "collateral damage" if it's a fake war, it's murder, there is no other way to put it. You lose the right to claim "collateral damage" or make up excuses when you have no moral high ground to do so.

Like I said, I can't stand the Taliban, but the US and NATO are friends with equally brutal regimes, Saudi Arabia for example. Weren't a few of the alleged "hijackers" from Saudi? How come we are not invading them? Because it does not suit their agenda, that's why.

Saying "it happens" just doesn't cut it, not for me at least.

In my opinion considering this incident to be collateral damage would be the same as considering a thief who broke into my home and "accidentally" shoot me and then claim that it was an accident and then have it categorized as collateral damage.

In my opinion these two scenarios are quite similar regardless of their obvious differences.

edit on 3/3/2013 by Corruption Exposed because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 

C'mon C.E... We nornally debate a bit better than this. I absolutely did read it.. as I noted specifically, you may have noted, the fact they were on a radio frequency hunt ......according to the local police chief.

Now, if that claim, as put forth in the article I read....is true. Then, that is where I said that treating it like a criminal matter may not be out of line. It wouldn't be the first incident in this war where NATO or American forces have investigated to find their own people at fault and done something about it.

I don't convict American or NATO forces on the insistence of an Afghan Village Official though. Not without a proper trial. Recall all that innocent until proven guilty stuff? Why, we were just talking about that ..and I even mentioned I'd remind folks on the matter from another recent topic. Innocent until proven guilty DOES apply to all sides...and I see a news story that opens as many questions as it tries to answer for a fresh incident all the details aren't in for.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


As I understand it your OP is about the tragic deaths of two children killed by NATO fire.

Now, lets remove the debate about why we are in Afghanistan in the first place and if the war is justifiable because that debate is a separate issue. There is an armed conflict taking place over there that has legal approval the premise of this conflict and its justifications however are highly debatable.

So with that in mind I ask you this, do you accept that in times of armed conflict innocent casualties are an inevitability if they are present in the conflict zone?



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


Strange that these kids are always wondering around in groups "collecting firewood" carrying what look like weapons.

Make me wonder if the weapons arent recoverd by the same people that sent them out to "collect firewood" so it can be used as propaganda.

Remember what kind of tactics they employ.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


As I understand it your OP is about the tragic deaths of two children killed by NATO fire.

Now, lets remove the debate about why we are in Afghanistan in the first place and if the war is justifiable because that debate is a separate issue. There is an armed conflict taking place over there that has legal approval the premise of this conflict and its justifications however are highly debatable.

So with that in mind I ask you this, do you accept that in times of armed conflict innocent casualties are an inevitability if they are present in the conflict zone?


I am unable to remove the debate as for why we are in Afghanistan as it is a crucial part of the big picture, we cannot ignore that we are there for reasons based on lies. Since we are there due to lies and deceit, we have absolutely no right to be there and this should not be considered a standard war or armed conflict and there is no justification for ANYTHING we do while we are there. It would be ignorant to not consider the full context of the situation while trying to come to a conclusion of our opinions on the matter.

To answer your question, yes it is very difficult so avoid civilian casualties in a "conflict zone" but this brings me back to my original point. This is not an actual war, what did Afghanistan do to NATO? Afghanistan never did anything to NATO until NATO started dropping bombs on villages and killing people, that's when the resistance began.

We cannot try and justify this as collateral damage when we are the invaders.

If Afghanistan ever attacked a NATO country I would at least admit reason for being there, but since NATO has never been attacked by Afghanistan we cannot claim this to be a "war". If this were a real war that deserved to exist, I would accept the fact that civilians may get caught in the crossfire but that does not apply to this scenario.

As I previously said it is a brutal occupation and nothing we do while we are there can be justified, especially the death of innocent children.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 11:13 AM
link   
Reports coming through that Prince Harry was the trigger man.....well my neighbour told me and she never lies to me...



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


Strange that these kids are always wondering around in groups "collecting firewood" carrying what look like weapons.

Make me wonder if the weapons arent recoverd by the same people that sent them out to "collect firewood" so it can be used as propaganda.

Remember what kind of tactics they employ.


Your theory is certainly possible but highly doubtful in this incident. The Taliban has not even been proven to exist in that area other than uncertain speculation.

Personally, I find your theory to be a tactic as well, a tactic meant to deflect the blame from where it actually belongs. It appears to me that you are implying that these children may have deserved what they got? Please forgive me if I misinterpreted your post.

How dare those Afghan children collect firewood during the winter ?

They must be terrorists!




posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Soloprotocol
 


Did she say where she heard these reports?

I wasn't even aware that Prince Harry was in Afghanistan.

ETA:

According to this link he recently finished a four month tour.

www.guardian.co.uk...
edit on 3/3/2013 by Corruption Exposed because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 11:21 AM
link   
just because you choose to call it a conflict and not a war doesn't change the fact that it's a legally mandated combat engagement. you can argue and debate the legality of it all you want, but you CHOOSING to call it what you WANT doesn't change what it actually is.

you're using your own personal opinion to paint with a very, very broad brush. collateral damage happens. it's happened in every war and conflict and fight since the dawn of civilization. it's nothing new. is it sad? absolutely it is. won't even begin to debate that. but you're trying to paint NATO out to be the baddest guys on the block because something happened that the Afghan tribes have been inflicting on each other for thousands of years without batting an eyelash. the only difference is the tools that are used.

typically i enjoy reading your comments, CE, because you're quite obviously on the other side of the aisle from myself. but your comment that your relative who was wounded by an IED 'got what he deserved' really resonated with me. that tells me pretty much everything i need to know about you as a person, and severely colors every comment you post, in my opinion. i can take you telling me that i was mislead or confused or outright stupid because you don't understand my reasons for deploying with my brothers-in-arms (and thats really what it boils down to, isn't it? you don't understand and don't care to hear anything about it unless i want to agree with you that i was mislead and am potentially a war criminal for serving in the military), but espousing the belief that those who were wounded deserved it? very classy.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
...As I understand it your OP is about the tragic deaths of two children killed by NATO fire.
...Now, lets remove the debate about why we are in Afghanistan in the first place and if the war is justifiable because that debate is a separate issue. There is an armed conflict taking place over there that has legal approval the premise of this conflict and its justifications however are highly debatable.

So with that in mind I ask you this, do you accept that in times of armed conflict innocent casualties are an inevitability if they are present in the conflict zone?

Good question. Accepting the premise that a different set of rules are the norm in times/places of war (armed conflict) - "yes" - collateral damage has pretty much always been an expected effect.
Does that make it any less tragic? I don't think so.
The parents of those two boys (presuming the boys were genuinely innocent in the incident) have nothing to say of "they gave their lives defending our freedoms"... Can't say - "they always wanted to destroy the Taliban (or Western forces) to restore humanity to our peoples". Just - "someone much bigger, with a bigger club, walked/flew over and clobbered them"...and, apparently just because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.
But - as you say - it is an unavoidable consequence of what is going on... Armed conflict, where the ones being sought, are hiding amid/behind the same people they were inflicting their insidious forms of religious justice only a short while ago.

ETA: If the boys had been killed by the Taliban...accidentally (or otherwise)...would we have even heard?
edit on 3/3/2013 by WanDash because: Just - edit to add



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
reply to post by Soloprotocol
 


Did she say where she heard these reports?

I wasn't even aware that Prince Harry was in Afghanistan.

ETA:

According to this link he recently finished a four month tour.

www.guardian.co.uk...
edit on 3/3/2013 by Corruption Exposed because: (no reason given)

come on, do you think the MSM are going to tell the taliban Harry is in town....when you see Harry falling out some night club or naked in a hotel room or playing Polo you can guarantee he's on manouvers...

How many Apache helicopters in Afghanistan...if Harry is there there is every chance he could have pulled the trigger...remember....It's all just a Video game to Harry Hewitt..



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


Strange that these kids are always wondering around in groups "collecting firewood" carrying what look like weapons.

Make me wonder if the weapons arent recoverd by the same people that sent them out to "collect firewood" so it can be used as propaganda.

Remember what kind of tactics they employ.


Your theory is certainly possible but highly doubtful in this incident. The Taliban has not even been proven to exist in that area other than uncertain speculation.:


C.E., you might want to do some research before taking the word as stated by a news article reporting on a politically sensitive incident. The idea that this area hasn't been known and well proven to have Taliban activity is outright, provably false.



ISAF Joint Command morning operational update, June 27

An Afghan and coalition security force apprehended an insurgent leader in Tarin Kot district, Uruzgan province, Sunday. He was responsible for planning, directing and executing attacks against Afghan National Security Force checkpoints and International Security Assistance Force patrols.

A large weapons and improvised explosive device cache was discovered in an operation conducted by a combined Afghan and coalition security force in Shahid-e Hasas district, Uruzgan province Tuesday. The cache included six rocket-propelled grenades, six IEDs, six kilograms of home-made explosive, eight AK47s, a machine gun, three grenades, and communications equipment. During the operation, insurgents attacked the security force from multiple locations. The Afghan and coalition troops returned fire and killed a number of the insurgents and detained several others.
Source

That's the same province and district the incident this thread is based on occurred in. That is from 2012 for context of ongoing history of enemy/Taliban activity in that sector. That doesn't justify what this may have been by any means ... but it reinforces the need in my mind to get the full facts of what happened before assuming any given version is the full tale.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Shamrock6
 




just because you choose to call it a conflict and not a war doesn't change the fact that it's a legally mandated combat engagement. you can argue and debate the legality of it all you want, but you CHOOSING to call it what you WANT doesn't change what it actually is.


I call it like I see it, you are also guilty of CHOOSING to call it what you want and you are right, it doesn't change what it actually is, it is what it is. Another thing you are guilty of is refusing to put the situation into proper context as your views on this whole scenario are obviously biased to the point where you will defend this senseless occupation.



you're using your own personal opinion to paint with a very, very broad brush. collateral damage happens. it's happened in every war and conflict and fight since the dawn of civilization. it's nothing new. is it sad? absolutely it is. won't even begin to debate that. but you're trying to paint NATO out to be the baddest guys on the block because something happened that the Afghan tribes have been inflicting on each other for thousands of years without batting an eyelash. the only difference is the tools that are used.


You accuse me of painting the situation with a very broad brush but in reality all I have done is provide some very obvious factual observations. I never denied collateral damage happens, but this is not a noble conquest we are taking part in and as I have repeatedly said there is no way to justify any of our actions while we are on Afghan soil. We are the invaders and there is no excuse for any deaths whatsoever. You call it collateral damage, I call it murder. Just because I do not agree with you does not mean I am wrong, have you ever took the time consider the fact that it is YOU who is wrong when it comes to your perspective and opinions on this matter?

The fact that Afghan tribes have been fighting for thousands of years has absolutely NOTHING to do with the incident in the OP or the actual occupation. I consider this comment of yours to be a deflection tactic, there have been several in this thread and we are only on page two.

As for your opinion of me for what I said about my brother, I really don't care what you think of me but I will correct you nonetheless.

You incorrectly portrayed what I said, whether it was on purpose or not I will never know. You said I said he deserved it.

My exact words were:

"Please keep in mind I have a family member who was wounded over there by an IED and I'm sad to say it, but he had it coming for being there."

That is not saying he deserved it, it's just saying that he put himself in that position knowing he was invading a foreign land, it's not rocket science. Everyone is responsible for their own actions, he chose to be there. He could have said no.

The day before he deployed I called him on the phone and wished him the best of luck and told him to stay safe, for you to imply that I wished this upon him is just ridiculous and downright ignorant.

Go ahead and judge all my posts for now one due to that one comment since you now think you know everything about me when in fact you are so incorrect about me and my beliefs that it would be comical if it wasn't so petty of you to use this logic that you have put forth.

Thank you for showcasing your ignorance, thankfully I will not judge all your posts from now on due to this one interaction as I am not that type of person. But you seem to have me all figured out so continue painting me with that broad brush you previously mentioned due to your incorrect interpretation of what I posted.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Soloprotocol
 


yes, yes I do think they're going to report that he's deployed. because they've done so twice, both times while he was deployed. the first time they went so far as to follow him around and create a circus about it. the second deployment was much more low key as far as media coverage, but it was still there.

will they report every move he makes? no, probably not. but yes, it's reported. my response to your refrain that the MSM is devoid of any real info is to broaden the MSM you look at. i find plenty of accurate information in MSM from outside the US.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Well, I have done some research. Going back to that article that you claim to have read there are conflicting reports and nothing has been verified.


Haji Mohammad Esmail, head of the district shura or council, said the area was “fully under government control,” and that “we haven’t seen any engagement in the area and nor is the area threatened by the Taliban.”


And then...


Abdullah Himat, a spokesman for the provincial government in Oruzgan, in southern Afghanistan, said that while the shooting was a mistake, there had been Taliban presence in the area and insurgents had opened fire on the helicopter. Both Australian and American soldiers were involved in the episode, he said.

Fareed Ayal, the spokesman for the provincial police chief, said the helicopter was hunting for Taliban by tracking their radio signals when the killings took place. “There wasn’t any engagement with the Taliban, it was just a mistake that they have killed the two boys at an area where they thought they detected a Taliban radio signal,” he said.


As I said it has not been proven that the Taliban were in the area at the time of the killings.

"They thought" they detected a Taliban radio signal. And they can easily say they were fired upon to justify the killings of these children.

Your theory/conclusion isn't as much of a slam dunk as you make it out to be.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


where did i even begin to opine about the conflict? you're continuing to call it what you want. it was, and still is, an officially legal military engagement signed off on by both the President and Congress. they didn't sign off on it as anything you've called it, they authorized military engagement. so no, I'm not calling it what I want (thats all you buddy), I'm calling it what it actually IS. telling me that I'm defending the occupation? what did I say that did that? please, copy and paste where I said we should be there (or shouldn't), that what is happening there is right (or isn't). go ahead, I'll wait.

still waiting.....

you can play semantics all you want. "got what was coming to him" is pretty obviously just another way of saying "got what he deserved." terrific job living up to my signature though. kudos for that. the name calling and going on and on and on.....and then on some more about my ignorance. really, just a waste of time. just recycled what had already been directed at you, put your own spin on it, and spit it back out. "i am rubber you are glue, everything you say bounces off me and sticks to you" would've said it more eloquently and much more entertainingly.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


so what you're saying is the Afghans should be trusted implicitly and everything they say taken at face value, no further inquiries or investigation needed or desired, but NATO/UN/US/Anybody Not Afghan are lying, covering up, or deflecting. seems legit.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 



Now, lets remove the debate about why we are in Afghanistan in the first place and if the war is justifiable because that debate is a separate issue. There is an armed conflict taking place over there that has legal approval the premise of this conflict and its justifications however are highly debatable.

the two cannot be separated, legal doesn't equate to moral, but even so the conflict is still illegal.

something is wrong when more of our soldiers are committing suicide than being killed in the "war".





new topics

top topics



 
131
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join