NATO Helicopter Kills Two Children

I hate headlinse like this. ATS is as bad as normal media.

"NATO Helicopter Kills Two Children"

Yep, it just jumped on two kids as they walked by !!!!.

How about some reasonable journalistic attempts at a valid headline, even if the content is still as biased or as weird.

Killing children even if by accident is rediculous and verry sad. To bad that even though NATO has killed children I am sure that this tragity will not teach them to be cautious.

Originally posted by pacifier2012
I hate headlinse like this. ATS is as bad as normal media.

"NATO Helicopter Kills Two Children"

Yep, it just jumped on two kids as they walked by !!!!.

How about some reasonable journalistic attempts at a valid headline, even if the content is still as biased or as weird.

What's wrong with the headline? It's completely truthful.

Perhaps you should read past the title and actually read the content of the OP. I am not implying that you did not read the OP but I am just suggesting you should not post on the title of the thread only without actually addressing any of the content in the OP.

The Original title was much "worse" but I adjusted it due to conflicting reports on the children's ages.

The fact of the matter is that a NATO helicopter murdered two children and their donkeys while they were collecting firewood, how about a bit of sympathy for the dead kids instead of moaning about the title

Originally posted by Corleyerika
Killing children even if by accident is rediculous and verry sad. To bad that even though NATO has killed children I am sure that this tragity will not teach them to be cautious.

Maybe there would be much less of it if the taliban "heroes" didn't slither away and hide amongst the women and children. Oh, tha's right, only aaaallllah is important in the grand scheme of things, why let the deaths of their friends and families get in the way of sucking up to their pretending friend and their murderous prophet (p155 be all over him ......pbuh)

reply to post by greatfriendbadfoe

They ain't slithering anywhere you muppet.....Those people are their families, they live there, it is their home.

Originally posted 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.

You are wrong.

Because NOBODY here has convicted anybody. They have criticized and voiced opinions. "Convicting" is done in a court. To equate opinions with "convicting" is a mischaracterization, and only serves your attempt to silence the opinions you disagree with.

It is a clever way of using your rethoric skills (as are your other comments) but it is wrong.

Originally posted by Kram09

 

Personally I'm of the opinion that NATO should be disbanded. In fact it should have been disbanded with the collapse of the Soviet Union.

NATO did not want to be disbanded – and they had the weapons to make sure it would not !

They needed another war, and they found an even “better” one - because it can go on forever, can be used in many countries and even within the US.

IMO, it is not a coincidence that after the fall of the Soviets in 1989, terrorism arose in the 1990’s. The 1993 WTC bomb that killed 6 people, according to court records, was done with explosives provided by FBI undercover agents.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

 

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? ... Innocent until proven guilty DOES apply to all sides.

So when was the trial that found those two children guilty?
And which judge convicted them to be executed?

Originally posted by greatfriendbadfoe

 

For gods sake, these pathetic slime that love to dominate their women

What you call "pathetic slime" those are people, human beings you know nothing about.

Originally posted by squarehead666
reply to post by greatfriendbadfoe

 

They ain't slithering anywhere you muppet.....Those people are their families, they live there, it is their home.

I said it "was" their friends and family fool. Guess you forgot to learn how to read well maybe just comprehend. Amazing how you ridicule what I typed, actually half of it and neglected the other half of what I typed. Guess you're one of the muzzy infiltrators over there in pommy land. I feel so sorry for that once great country. Mass multiculturalism is running its course. White poms are leaving london in numbers not seen before, muslim gangs are being the right real thugs to those who won't become muslim in their neighbourhoods (gleened these from other ats threads), taliban thinking it's appropriate to disfigure the genitals of women. 5h1t what a fantastic religion. no wonder so many people are flocking to it

Originally posted by squarehead666
reply to post by greatfriendbadfoe

 

They ain't slithering anywhere you muppet.....Those people are their families, they live there, it is their home.

Here's another ats thread that might grab your attention. On this actual page there are a couple of poms who have commented on what is happening there. Guess there are still some people who won't sit back and take what is happening to their country
www.abovetopsecret.com...&addstar=1&on=16049811#pid16049811

How does this fit in with this thread? Well I commented on how I perceive the happenings over in the ME that were associated with why there are innocents being killed and you came back with a hopeless attempt (imo) in bagging out my comment. Hence, my reply was showing the character of this pathetic religion and linking it ot other ats threads. and this page supports my line of thought.

Originally posted by ThinkingHuman

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

 

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? ... Innocent until proven guilty DOES apply to all sides.

So when was the trial that found those two children guilty?
And which judge convicted them to be executed?

edit on 8-3-2013 by ThinkingHuman because: (no reason given)

It's called the court of public opinion, as modern folks refer to it. It seemed to be in full session on this thread as it has on other threads of a similar nature in the past. I was commenting and addressing myself to that general side of this.

Obviously, no one has stood for formal charges to be read yet. It may never even get that far, which was my whole point. Assuming makes an ass out of people....and assuming circumstances, let alone guilt in this situation brings truth to that, IMO.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

Originally posted by ThinkingHuman

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

 

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? ... Innocent until proven guilty DOES apply to all sides.

So when was the trial that found those two children guilty?
And which judge convicted them to be executed?

edit on 8-3-2013 by ThinkingHuman because: (no reason given)

It's called the court of public opinion, as modern folks refer to it. It seemed to be in full session on this thread as it has on other threads of a similar nature in the past. I was commenting and addressing myself to that general side of this.

Playing on words like this is not somebody who is voicing of an opinion but an attempt to obstruct the incongruity of your statement, IMO. You said: "Innocent until proven guilty DOES apply to all sides."
Yet,

On the one hand, you do not want to hold NATO accountable by stating that nobody can be convicted without (NATO sanctioned) court trial.

On the other hand, you brush over the fact that the Afghanis, even IF they are militants, are executed without trial.

"Court of public opinion" is not where "Innocent until proven guilty DOES apply". We are lucky that we still have the right to an opinion. But NATO does not give that right to the Afghanis. And maybe soon they will not give that right to Americans any longer.

reply to post by ThinkingHuman

On the other hand, you brush over the fact that the Afghanis, even IF they are militants, are executed without trial.

Okay, quick terminology lesson here because playing word game gotcha is getting out of hand here.

Afghan Militants = Recognized Combatants in *WAR ZONE*. People in war zones get shot and killed without a trial. (Where was Daniel Pearl's trial, btw? That wasn't even a war zone and some of these same lovely people)

This is why we call them war zones. In Afghanistan there are two clearly defined (when actively fighting anyway) sides to a very real an ongoing WAR. There are the Western forces represented by NATO and the United States commands and there are the Taliban fighting diligently to retake control of Afghanistan and return it to a theocracy from some long past century in history. The Taliban are sometimes aided and supported by Al Qaeda but Al Qaeda is an umbrella term for a world wide franchise and Afghanistan is just one location they're active in.

Now in this thread's story, we have what MAY or MAY NOT have been militants. I don't know that and neither do you. We have the local villagers who are saying they were innocent kids out collecting wood or something. We have a local police chief saying about the same with more detail. If they HAD BEEN militants, those saying this would also be guilty by being sympathizers. Had you considered that? There IS a very real motivation for the Afghanis to LIE.

So...it's with that in mind for very detailed context, that I have said Innocent until proven Guilty for the allegation of killing innocent civilians on a hillside and not militants. I'd prefer we withdraw ALL troops and end this war. Should have done that years ago........but while we have troops in combat, a LITTLE SUPPORT might be the least we can give them ....until proven otherwise on a case by case basis.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

 

Okay, quick terminology lesson here because playing word game gotcha is getting out of hand here.

Afghan Militants = Recognized Combatants in *WAR ZONE*. People in war zones get shot and killed without a trial. (Where was Daniel Pearl's trial, btw? That wasn't even a war zone and some of these same lovely people)

This is why we call them war zones. In Afghanistan there are two clearly defined (when actively fighting anyway) sides to a very real an ongoing WAR. There are the Western forces represented by NATO and the United States commands and there are the Taliban fighting diligently to retake control of Afghanistan and return it to a theocracy from some long past century in history. The Taliban are sometimes aided and supported by Al Qaeda but Al Qaeda is an umbrella term for a world wide franchise and Afghanistan is just one location they're active in.

This "terminology lesson" reflects your wishful thinking, not reality.

When was Afghanistan declared a *WAR ZONE*? Never. Bush labeled the people terrorists. Terrorists are bad people - but what identifies people you can see only from a helicopter a terrorist? (Maybe the fact of carrying cameras or sticks??)

You used the terminology "Innocent until proven guilty DOES apply to all sides."
Now you say, well, it does not apply to what we label "militants". Why? Because if we say they are militants - then they are militants!

So, in this terminology lesson, you forgot to define the word "militant". Did the US declare "WAR against militants"?
If not, what, in your belief, justifies that, IF they really are militants, they do NOT have a right to live and we have the right to kill them without a trial? (Karzai was democratically elected, we are not at war.)

Daniel Pearl was murdered. Does that justify that we go around and kill whoever we decide?

You described the "very real motivation for the Afghanis to LIE". You implicitly suggest that this gives Americans the licence to kill - and you ignore the very real motivation for the Americans to LIE.

"a LITTLE SUPPORT might be the least we can give them" for the KILLERS our government is sending to foreign countries? Sugar-coated enough.


"Al Qaeda is an umbrella term for a world wide franchise and Afghanistan is just one location they're active in". So Americans can kill people "world wide", we just need to label them "militants".
"world wide" btw includes the US. Thank you for the lesson.

reply to post by jcarpenter


again, cool story. till somebody appoints you to a bench somewhere and wraps you in the mantle of justice, you may call me whatever you like. its fine. but all your drivel remains your OPINION. not a fact, simply your opinion and nothing more. cite all the historical examples you care to. nothing changes the fact that everything you're spouting is nothing more than your own views, and it really doesn't matter how many here agree with you, because still none of you have any judicial authority.

you have a right to your own opinion, but not your own facts. and i have the right to disagree, and point out your lack of facts. thanks for playing.