NATO Kills Convoy of Women and Children

[Raul Caribe]

personally i wish war was really war like the days of old not so much tech wise or anything like that but more along the lines of politiciants start the wars and then they step aside and let the army win then the war by what ever means is needed.. during ww2 many many civilians died no body really wanted them to die but it happens. accidents happen. mistakes happen. but oh well shit happens.

really though i worry more about our troops and civilians and then our allied troops then their civilians then the noncombatants. if civilians in a war zone get killed. especially in a place where those same women and children could have just been shields or cover for enemy i just do not really care if they did get killed.

really the enemy does not care how many women and children they killed of ours. they stared it. a country that has them within its borders and does not make a legit attempt to oust or capture the said enemy makes that countries government the enemy also.

im not politically correct and i dislike war. i also wish we were not in the middle east fighting right now. but we are there and we will be there for some time to come (unless obama pulls us out to soon in which case we will have to go back again just like the 1st bush pulled out to soon) unless we actually fight the war to win.

in war accidents happen period.

[Antilon]

personally i wish war was really war like the days of old not so much tech wise or anything like that but more along the lines of politiciants start the wars and then they step aside and let the army win then the war by what ever means is needed.. during ww2 many many civilians died no body really wanted them to die but it happens. accidents happen. mistakes happen. but oh well shit happens.

really though i worry more about our troops and civilians and then our allied troops then their civilians then the noncombatants. if civilians in a war zone get killed. especially in a place where those same women and children could have just been shields or cover for enemy i just do not really care if they did get killed.

really the enemy does not care how many women and children they killed of ours. they stared it. a country that has them within its borders and does not make a legit attempt to oust or capture the said enemy makes that countries government the enemy also.

im not politically correct and i dislike war. i also wish we were not in the middle east fighting right now. but we are there and we will be there for some time to come (unless obama pulls us out to soon in which case we will have to go back again just like the 1st bush pulled out to soon) unless we actually fight the war to win.

in war accidents happen period.

You, uh, do know that civilians were targeted in WWII? Ever heard of carpet bombing? Battle of Britain? Dresden? Doolittle Raid?

[Urgolon]

War is stupid

/The End.

I agree, but the only current alternative is to allow terrorists to walk all over us.

[United Southernours]

Okay, they killed a buncha civilians that that had Intel on for them being combatants. Good riddance in my opinion. Still waiting hoping that NATO decides to turn the middle east into a parking lot though...

[Gauthier]

Okay, they killed a buncha civilians that that had Intel on for them being combatants. Good riddance in my opinion. Still waiting hoping that NATO decides to turn the middle east into a parking lot though...

But then Israel would be a parking lot too. Are you anti-Semitic?

[Lackadaisical2]

personally i wish war was really war like the days of old not so much tech wise or anything like that but more along the lines of politiciants start the wars and then they step aside and let the army win then the war by what ever means is needed.. during ww2 many many civilians died no body really wanted them to die but it happens. accidents happen. mistakes happen. but oh well shit happens.

really though i worry more about our troops and civilians and then our allied troops then their civilians then the noncombatants. if civilians in a war zone get killed. especially in a place where those same women and children could have just been shields or cover for enemy i just do not really care if they did get killed.

really the enemy does not care how many women and children they killed of ours. they stared it. a country that has them within its borders and does not make a legit attempt to oust or capture the said enemy makes that countries government the enemy also.

im not politically correct and i dislike war. i also wish we were not in the middle east fighting right now. but we are there and we will be there for some time to come (unless obama pulls us out to soon in which case we will have to go back again just like the 1st bush pulled out to soon) unless we actually fight the war to win.

in war accidents happen period.

The only problem is this isn't conventional war...

we're trying to win them over instead of completely destroying moral. In this way its very much different from WW2 where we could just not give a fuck, or intentionally kill civies.

[Bachsania]

Shit happens. Too bad. If someone can somehow turn this to how evil the Americans and NATO is. All I have to say is: If we weren't there more than a couple of women and children would die. That being said. NATO isn't only America. France too and many others.

[Avenio]

Okay, they killed a buncha civilians that that had Intel on for them being combatants. Good riddance in my opinion. Still waiting hoping that NATO decides to turn the middle east into a parking lot though...

This is what really peeves me about modern warfare, especially of the modern variety. The people that drive policymaking in America (ie the citizenry) have become so disconnected to the horrors of warfare and the human toll taken every day that one can wave away innocent deaths with a 'good riddance'. It's sickening, to say the least.

[Whole Conviction]

Okay, they killed a buncha civilians that that had Intel on for them being combatants. Good riddance in my opinion. Still waiting hoping that NATO decides to turn the middle east into a parking lot though...

This is what really peeves me about modern warfare, especially of the modern variety. The people that drive policymaking in America (ie the citizenry) have become so disconnected to the horrors of warfare and the human toll taken every day that one can wave away innocent deaths with a 'good riddance'. It's sickening, to say the least.

Yeah. One might be able to say that the deaths were inevitable, given the stresses of the situation... but to say they don't matter? I question the humanity of anyone who can dismiss human life so casually.

[Wutaco]

[citation needed]


That being said, there are no civilians in a war zone.

Or...you know, the civilians in the warzone. But if you like slaughtering women and children you have problems

[Gauthier]

[citation needed]


That being said, there are no civilians in a war zone.

Or...you know, the civilians in the warzone. But if you like slaughtering women and children you have problems

[SARCASM]But they were Muslims. They were either supporting the insurgents or were insurgents themselves.[/SARCASM]

[New Chalcedon]

[citation needed]


That being said, there are no civilians in a war zone.

Parthenon, the Fourth Geneva Convention- to which every member of NATO is a willing signatory - disagrees with you.

As does basic human decency. There should be attached consequences for snuffing out the lives of people whose only crime is to be caught in the middle, however accidentally - that's why they created the manslaughter charge.

Having siad that, people will be killed, and any trial's first responsibility would be to determine if 'reasonable effort - per the legal definition - had been taken to avoid these specific civilian casualties.

[Raul Caribe]

personally i wish war was really war like the days of old not so much tech wise or anything like that but more along the lines of politiciants start the wars and then they step aside and let the army win then the war by what ever means is needed.. during ww2 many many civilians died no body really wanted them to die but it happens. accidents happen. mistakes happen. but oh well shit happens.

really though i worry more about our troops and civilians and then our allied troops then their civilians then the noncombatants. if civilians in a war zone get killed. especially in a place where those same women and children could have just been shields or cover for enemy i just do not really care if they did get killed.

really the enemy does not care how many women and children they killed of ours. they stared it. a country that has them within its borders and does not make a legit attempt to oust or capture the said enemy makes that countries government the enemy also.

im not politically correct and i dislike war. i also wish we were not in the middle east fighting right now. but we are there and we will be there for some time to come (unless obama pulls us out to soon in which case we will have to go back again just like the 1st bush pulled out to soon) unless we actually fight the war to win.

in war accidents happen period.

You, uh, do know that civilians were targeted in WWII? Ever heard of carpet bombing? Battle of Britain? Dresden? Doolittle Raid?

thats kinda my point my friend. nowadays the military avoids the civilinas and it always seems to turn to shit. so go back to actually a time when we won wars and civilians were targets.
same theroy they have when they target our buildings and such they demorilize the civies and the government follows or atleast that what they hoped for.

i see other in this thread talk about y2k the planet was on the verge of world peace then they go on to thinking the US Government didnt want peace. HELL they started it not the US.

[Raul Caribe]

personally i wish war was really war like the days of old not so much tech wise or anything like that but more along the lines of politiciants start the wars and then they step aside and let the army win then the war by what ever means is needed.. during ww2 many many civilians died no body really wanted them to die but it happens. accidents happen. mistakes happen. but oh well shit happens.

really though i worry more about our troops and civilians and then our allied troops then their civilians then the noncombatants. if civilians in a war zone get killed. especially in a place where those same women and children could have just been shields or cover for enemy i just do not really care if they did get killed.

really the enemy does not care how many women and children they killed of ours. they stared it. a country that has them within its borders and does not make a legit attempt to oust or capture the said enemy makes that countries government the enemy also.

im not politically correct and i dislike war. i also wish we were not in the middle east fighting right now. but we are there and we will be there for some time to come (unless obama pulls us out to soon in which case we will have to go back again just like the 1st bush pulled out to soon) unless we actually fight the war to win.

in war accidents happen period.

The only problem is this isn't conventional war...

we're trying to win them over instead of completely destroying moral. In this way its very much different from WW2 where we could just not give a fuck, or intentionally kill civies.

again was a point i was trying to make. this different type of war is long and drug out and more costly. to hell if they love us or not i dont care just make then surrender or die like the good ole days.
other wise we will just keep having to go back over and over again untill eaither we get a pres that lets the military fight or they end up winning.

war isnt about making nice with people its about killing people.

[Israslovakahzerbajan]

war isnt about making nice with people its about killing people.

War has purposes...I thought it was just chimps randomly blowin' out eachothers' brains because the other chimp wants it's opponent's bannana.

[Albignano]

NATO is making too many mistakes. Another time they fired missles which missed their targets and hit a town and killed a few civilians. They shouldn't just be allowed to walk for such mistakes.

So what exactly do you recommend we do? Fine them? Deny them equipment? Strip them of rank and lose well-trained officer? The only thing punishing the soldiers will accomplish is making morale plummet and make it far easier for these mistakes to be repeated. Soldiers are stressed enough without having the thought of being court martialed for making a mistake in calling coordinates or accidentally killing or wounding a civilian in the crossfire.

While I'm not saying these killings are justified, they are far from criminal material when you're fighting a war as dirty as the one in Afghanistan or Iraq.

Problem is: you assume their mistakes are justifiable. I have the slight suspect that your assumption is due to the fact that, deep inside, you think those civils were not-so-innocent-after-all.

Problem is: were they a target or not?

If their killing is justified by considering them a target, then this must be considered a murder by civil standards.

If their killing is a mistake, well then those "well-trained officer" - as you call them - are not so well-trained or capable and - even in the evil consideration of those civil lifes being expendable ( ), please consider the seriousness of such a mistake in face of int'l public opinion.

[Albignano]

With the apalling slaughter of civillians, NATO Commanders are running around saying they are Sorry for the Deaths. Is it Enough? Should NATO Commanders be charged with Gross Criminal Negligence and Multiple Murder for Civilian Deaths?

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1200 ... ian-deaths
http://news.aol.ca/article/nato-airstri ... ns/782708/
http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0222/afghanistan.html

Well, I wouldn't call them criminals, much less charge them with anything... but who the HELL messes up like that? Seriously, I would at least fire each and every one of the bastards the hell out of the military because that kinda crap-up is only what idiots manage to reach. If I was their commander, I'd have each and every one of their skivvies. How hard is it to identify "people with guns" and "people without guns", or "truck fleeing from battlefield", and "truck barreling at a checkpoint at full speed"

Fully agree.

But there's still the disturbing suspect that this kid of mistakes are considered not-so-serious 'cause they are at the expenses of "those evil Muslims".

[Whole Conviction]

war isnt about making nice with people its about killing people.

No it isn't. Killing people is a means to an end. It's also not the ONLY means. Indeed, counterinsurgency operations ARE about making nice to people. The military effort MUST be joined with diplomatic, cultural and reconstruction imperitives, or the military effort is for nothing. If all you do is kill, then you better be prepared for a) losing or b) committing genocide.

It's not about being a hippy. It's about WINNING. This isn't the battle of the bulge... it's a totally different beast. You don't win by killing your enemies, you win by turning the population to your side. If you combine reconstruction and diplomacy with mis-targetted strikes, then the population ends up running to the other side with abandon, because the message they're getting from you is far too schizophrenic for them to be happy.

Make nice, commit genocide or get out. One, two or three. Choosing multiple options ends up in you losing.

[Natapoc]

You know what? Murder is Murder. There is no way to justify it. It does not matter who does it. If the state murders it is murder. If a terrorist like Usama kills someone it is murder.

Save the justifications for their lawyers.

[Albignano]

personally i wish war was really war like the days of old

Precisely when?

There was a time (roughly up to the end of 19th century) when wars were fought by "professionals" (very often there was little or no relationship between the combatants' country of origin and the country they were fighting for). In those days, civilians suffered 'cause combatants did not give a shit about them. Rape & pillage & pure massacre just for the sake of it.

After that there was (and still is) a time when wars are "country wars". Therefore all civilians are considered "unarmed combatants" and a "resource" of the enemy. Therefore... killing them is considered good war practice (to ruin enemy workforce, to break enemy's moral stregth)

Which "old days' war" do you like?

during ww2 many many civilians died no body really wanted them to die but it happens.

No, "somebody" wanted them to die. British bombed Berlin to show they were resisting (at the start of the war). Yes, it was intended as a demonstrative act but I'm pretty sure they did not expect to hit only military personnel. After all, that turned out to be a lucky action, for it angered Hitler who decided to stop bombing factories and airfields and concentrated on London city (and civilians). Which was the reason why he lost the Battle of England and maybe the war, after all. But then, in a ranking of "Strategic Minds Of The History" he'd easily rank at the last place.

i worry more about our troops and civilians and then our allied troops then their civilians then the noncombatants. if civilians in a war zone get killed. especially in a place where those same women and children could have just been shields or cover for enemy i just do not really care if they did get killed.

really the enemy does not care how many women and children they killed of ours. they stared it. a country that has them within its borders and does not make a legit attempt to oust or capture the said enemy makes that countries government the enemy also.

If you (and those fighting there) keep thinking like that, although honestly, you (and them) would always be prone to this kind of "mistakes".
If your attitude is "First shoot, then check who actually the target was", you'd always get lots of innocent lives (and some "friendly fire" victims too.)
And this attitude - I suspect - is a bit "justified" by thinking that "after all they're a bunch of terrorists' friends".
The end result is that the civilians are easily convinced that they could stay better with the Talibans than with the western countries. So, how can you think you could "win" the war? (Unless you support those idiots who want to "erase" that country, which in turn would bring to a total war in quite a short time.)

[Lowell Leber]

Shit does happen. No commander would intentially target a civillian convoy in today's media saturated world.And as far as the value of human life, look at war as a way of improving quality over quanity. Not on a in a race or ethnic sense, just in a numbers sense (think of the overpopulation we might be facing if not from ww2). Its a callous way to think but humans tend to be callous creatures.

[Lowell Leber]

And as far as murder...technically all governments hold the right to use coercive force (read up to fatal force) on their own citizens if need be, so why not on others in a war?

[Natapoc]

Shit does happen. No commander would intentially target a civillian convoy in today's media saturated world.And as far as the value of human life, look at war as a way of improving quality over quanity. Not on a in a race or ethnic sense, just in a numbers sense (think of the overpopulation we might be facing if not from ww2). Its a callous way to think but humans tend to be callous creatures.

A human must be trained to be so callous with trauma. Taught to objectify others. There is no evidence that people are naturally so callous.

[Natapoc]

And as far as murder...technically all governments hold the right to use coercive force (read up to fatal force) on their own citizens if need be, so why not on others in a war?

They have no such right. Although they do so quite often.

[Lowell Leber]

I disagree...I think of slavery throughout history, the barbarian hordes that sacked Rome, The mongols, etc. All of these were untrained rabble in a sense and yet they spared no one. Humans kill for sport, animals do not.