Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Floppin

Want to see how the US military justifies killing children?

63 posts in this topic

CAMP LEATHERNECK, Afghanistan — When Marines in Helmand province sized up shadowy figures that appeared to be emplacing an improvised explosive device, it looked like a straightforward mission. They got clearance for an airstrike, a Marine official said, and took out the targets.

It wasn’t that simple, however. Three individuals hit were 12, 10 and 8 years old, leading the International Security Assistance Force in Kabul to say it may have “accidentally killed three innocent Afghan civilians.”

But a Marine official here raised questions about whether the children were “innocent.” Before calling for the M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System mission in mid-October, Marines observed the children digging a hole in a dirt road in Nawa district, the official said, and the Taliban may have recruited the children to carry out the mission.

The incident underscores a continuing problem across Afghanistan. The use of children by the Taliban — through recruitment and as human shields — complicates coalition forces’ efforts to eliminate enemy fighters from the battlefield without angering civilians.

The New York Times reported that the dead children’s family members said they had been sent to gather dung, which farmers use for fuel. Taliban fighters were laying the bombs near the children, who were mistakenly killed, they said.

Regardless, it’s one of many times the children have been involved in the war. In a case this year, Afghan National Police in Kandahar province’s Zharay district found two boys, ages 9 and 11, with a male 18-year-old carrying 1-liter soda bottles full of enough potassium chlorate to kill coalition forces on a foot patrol.

“It kind of opens our aperture,” said Army Lt. Col. Marion “Ced” Carrington, whose unit, 1st Battalion, 508th Parachute Infantry Regiment, was assisting the Afghan police. “In addition to looking for military-age males, it’s looking for children with potential hostile intent.”

http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2012/12/marine-taliban-kids-120312w

There you go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And folks wonder why the natives are hostile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

damn liberal media stymieing the war effort! if only macarthur had been making the decisions and not stupid politicians and their 'ethics' we'd have won the vietnam war hands down with uncontrolled use of exfoliants and napalm but noooooo can't kill kids

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

damn liberal media stymieing the war effort! if only macarthur had been making the decisions and not stupid politicians and their 'ethics' we'd have won the vietnam war hands down with uncontrolled use of exfoliants and napalm but noooooo can't kill kids

...and apparently Kill Haruki Nakamura's family? Noooooo!

oh wait he isnt From vietnam....

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I try to put myself in these people's shoes...

How would I feel if a foreign force were in the United States, and my kids were drawing with chalk on the asphalt in front of our house, and this happened? I would be planning on killing those fugers. As many as I could.

I wish our troops would come home and STAY home.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

kids make the best killers

doesn't make killing them any less fuged up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the kids are innocent because the parents sent them out for some poo?

Huh? This question confuses me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There were a lot of children used in Vietnam. They would walk up to a helicopter and toss in a grenade, killing several U.S. soldiers in the process.

If these kids were truly innocent then this is an awful story and there is no justification. If this was a situation like Vietnam, though, then the parents' story that they were sending their kids out to collect dung doesn't pass the smell test.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



  • Topics

  • Posts

    • LOL. Well neither do you man- you're haphazardly speculating at best. I have vastly more evidence that Pryor would not be the starter and Mike Adams would First off: Mike Adams is better.  Second: Clearly the Panthers wanted Adams, probably going to start the guy they wanted.  Third: Mike Adams is a veteran presence just like the last successful guy to start at SS was for us: Harper: who would still be here if he had any gas left in the tank. The front office and coaches loved that veteran leadership he provided. Harper was starting games he had no business too- because our coaches loved how he positively helped our team. Guess who that replacement veteran leader is: Mike Adams.  Four: Calvin Pryor has been so bad the Jets are willing to give him up for "anything" and drafted safeties with their first and second round picks. That does not sound like the kind of guy that's out beating a consecutive Pro Bowl player.  Five: We already have a project safety on our team: Tre Boston   If you give up anything Pryor you have no idea how negotiations work in the first place. Jet's have no leverage here. Pryor is likely getting cut. 
    • blah blah blah our best WR who averages a 1,000 yards per season is a fat arse..trade him A.S.A.P.! Swole Bones is going be a future HOF TE...just give him one more year to develop? huddle logic :)