License to Kill (NATO)

zom

11 children reportedly killed in NATO air strike in Afghanistan:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0407/380169-afghanistan-nato/

If it would happen in Syria Human Rights people surely would call it Crime Against Humanity. But not with NATO - they have license. License to kill.

Mena

Yeah, I'm sure they aimed for the kids right? License to kill? /sigh

o1s1n

With headlines like that OP you should be writing for the Daily Mail.

paulmclaughlin

It's like James Bond x 1000.

zom

o1s1n wrote: »

With headlines like that OP you should be writing for the Daily Mail.

It's headline from RTE.

Seachmall

zom wrote: »

It's headline from RTE.

RTE don't have that headline.

cml387

zom wrote: »

It's headline from RTE.

No it's not.

o1s1n

zom wrote: »

It's headline from RTE.

'11 children killed in NATO attack in Afghanistan'

Yep, clearly the same.

:rolleyes:

donvito99

+ 8 alleged insurgants including 2 Al Qaeda leaders.

Chuck Stone

donvito99 wrote: »

+ 8 alleged insurgants and 2 Al Qaeda leaders.

That makes it okay?

Should the children of NATO soldiers be fair game in their home countries?

TeddyTedson

I remember seeing a documentary on the war in Iraq.
There were kids who had the most horrific burns and had lost the rest of there families.
This might be in bad taste but perhaps if would have been better if the kids had died too.
Unfortunately most wars will have child casualties.
It's horrific but world leaders are willing to take a few casualties in war. I guess they are forced to in some aspects.

amacca

paulmclaughlin wrote: »

It's like James Bond x 1000.

Nato.....James Nato

My name is plenty, plenty o'toole

named after your father perhaps?


Do you expect me to talk goldfinger?

No Mr. Nato I expect you to die!


aah the memories

Jimmy Garlic

A dozen years later and they are still bombing the crap out of that third world country. The US bombs (alleged) Al Qaeda leaders in Afghanistan yet supports them in Libya and Syria. Strange logic. Al Qaeda is basically a CIA creation anyway.

Conmaicne Mara

Chuck Stone wrote: »

That makes it okay?

Should the children of NATO soldiers be fair game in their home countries?

New York, London, Madrid. Just to name three.

Jonny7

NATO are fighting to get out of the country but leave it in some state to take care of itself.

Militants and extremists have killed thousands of children over the last decade in Afghanistan and NW Pakistan

Again, they (NATO/US) don't have the option to build a time-machine and go back and undo Bush's terrible decision to go into that region in the first place. They do however have the option just to pull out of that hell-hole and leave it to the re-emerging Taliban, but as I said above, they are choosing to get the fledgling Afghan security forces up to some sort of level that they can fend for themselves and of course, all the time, having to fight the waves of "holy warriors" streaming in from Waziristan

Unfortunately tragic incidents do happen - just another sad side-affect of that shiatty conflict.

666irishguy

11 woman and children killed by NATO, or 8 deluded men involved in a pathetic religious war that finally caught up with them and their families?

mikehammer67

not the first time

they seem to be less than careful with civilians

Chuck Stone

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

New York, London, Madrid. Just to name three.

Should the children of NATO soldiers be fair game in their home countries?

IM0

better

donvito99

Chuck Stone wrote: »

That makes it okay?

Should the children of NATO soldiers be fair game in their home countries?

Afghanistan doesn't have drones, stealth bombers, does it?

Chuck Stone

donvito99 wrote: »

Afghanistan doesn't have drones, stealth bombers, does it?

Should the children of NATO soldiers be fair game in their home countries?

General General

donvito99 wrote: »

Afghanistan doesn't have drones, stealth bombers, does it?

I wouldn't be surprised if they have drones soon, the Afghans be havin' mad skillz when it comes to repairing downed/found weaponry.

RPG launchers & sh!t that have bits of toothbrushes fitted to replace broken or worn out components.

token101

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Should the children of NATO soldiers be fair game in their home countries?

Hypothetically, if there's a war and you have only one opportunity to take out an enemy who might very well be responsible for 1000's of deaths on your side but the only way of doing so involves kids dying, well that's the way it has to be. Innocent people dying is horrible regardless of the age, it's not as if once you hit 18 you're fair game. I'd imagine they wanted to avoid these deaths as much as anyone, for the negative publicity if nothing else, but it's not as cut and dry as everyone seems to think it is. The Americans are far from benevolent, but they're not exactly fighting people who are obeying the rules of war either are they?

Chuck Stone

token101 wrote: »

Hypothetically, if there's a war and you have only one opportunity to take out an enemy who might very well be responsible for 1000's of deaths on your side but the only way of doing so involves kids dying, well that's the way it has to be. Innocent people dying is horrible regardless of the age, it's not as if once you hit 18 you're fair game. I'd imagine they wanted to avoid these deaths as much as anyone, for the negative publicity if nothing else, but it's not as cut and dry as everyone seems to think it is. The Americans are far from benevolent, but they're not exactly fighting people who are obeying the rules of war either are they?

If a Taliban or Al Queada militant, with an RPG, is standing outside the home of a high ranking officer in NATO and the guy is sitting down with his beautiful white wife and gorgeous 3 children, saying grace before meals, should the militant take the shot? Are the kids collateral damage in a conflict?

arybvtcw0eolkf

zom wrote: »

11 children reportedly killed in NATO air strike in Afghanistan:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0407/380169-afghanistan-nato/

If it would happen in Syria Human Rights people surely would call it Crime Against Humanity. But not with NATO - they have license. License to kill.

No they wouldn't.. There was over 6000 killed in Syria last month and hardly a word about it.. No boycotts, no flotilla's, no threads on boards ~ no one gives a bollox.

donvito99

80 miners lost their lives recently in China and not a peep. We know the media is terribly selective, it's been discussed here a zillion times.

WOCM4

Angelina Uneven Fruit wrote: »

No they wouldn't.. There was over 6000 killed in Syria last month and hardly a word about it.. No boycotts, no flotilla's, no threads on boards ~ no one gives a bollox.

Fantastic Liveleak Videos tho.

I know you've seen them.
***Disclaimer, I think its a bloody , literal tragedy over there, they are between the devil and the deep blue sea,both sides***

token101

Chuck Stone wrote: »

If a Taliban or Al Queada militant, with an RPG, is standing outside the home of a high ranking officer in NATO and the guy is sitting down with his beautiful white wife and gorgeous 3 children, saying grace before meals, should the militant take the shot? Are the kids collateral damage in a conflict?

Morally, probably not. Realistically, if you're that militant in what you see as a war and you know you most likely won't get another chance, would you take the shot? Because I'd blow the place to bits if it was me.

Gatling

token101 wrote: »

Morally, probably not. Realistically, if you're that militant in what you see as a war and you know you most likely won't get another chance, would you take the shot? Because I'd blow the place to bits if it was me.

In them situations its you or them

I choose them every time wooooooosh booom

Chuck Stone

token101 wrote: »

would you take the shot?

I don't think I could live with myself if I knew I'd killed kids.

full_irish

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I don't think I could live with myself if I knew I'd killed kids.

and that's why you'll always be known as 'the other chuck'... forever in Chuck Norris' shadow...

seenitall

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I don't think I could live with myself if I knew I'd killed kids.

Lucky you're not a soldier then.

"Should" has nothing to do with the situation you described. The word "war" is a big clue. All "shoulds" have been exhausted, all bets are off.

Unfortunately for the innocents.

Chuck Stone

seenitall wrote: »

Lucky you're not a soldier then.

I'm not a pacifist - I just don't think I have it in me to knowingly kill children.

"Should" has nothing to do with the situation you described. The word "war" is a big clue. All "shoulds" have been exhausted, all bets are off.

What now?

WOCM4

Fooking Internet warriors make me sick.

moneymad

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

A dozen years later and they are still bombing the crap out of that third world country. The US bombs (alleged) Al Qaeda leaders in Afghanistan yet supports them in Libya and Syria. Strange logic. Al Qaeda is basically a CIA creation anyway.

It's call rent a terrorist.

seenitall

Chuck Stone wrote: »

What now?

In the right (or should I say wrong?) circumstances, everyone has it in themselves to kill anyone. Children, dogs, disabled, neighbours, Corkmen, relatives.

One of the circumstances that would lead me to kill anyone, anyone at all, would be if I thought the life of my child is under threat from that person. That's just one circumstance though, there would be a few more, I'm sure.

When it comes to killing children, it's all about the amount of brainwashing required for a person to regard them as part of "the enemy". As we've seen with many wars over the centuries, sometimes it doesn't even take much brainwashing, the human brain (er, conscience :rolleyes:) is very pliable like that.

Cookie_Monster

Chuck Stone wrote: »

If a Taliban or Al Queada militant, with an RPG, is standing outside the home of a high ranking officer in NATO and the guy is sitting down with his beautiful white wife and gorgeous 3 children, saying grace before meals, should the militant take the shot? Are the kids collateral damage in a conflict?

yes and yes.

Jimmy Garlic

moneymad wrote: »

It's call rent a terrorist.

They call terrorists "rebels" when it suits the agenda.

donvito99

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

They call terrorists "rebels" when it suits the agenda.

But they can clearly set the agenda, with their fighter jets and drones and nukes and battle ships.

token101

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I don't think I could live with myself if I knew I'd killed kids.

That's a bit of a ridiculously sweeping statement really, there's plenty of situations where you could knowingly kill children and be perfectly be able to sleep at night. It just depends really how far you'd be willing to stretch your morals if you perceived a threat against you and its imminence, and in the majority of people I'd imagine the answer would be pretty far, gruesomely far I'd think, given circumstances.

The circumstances are obviously vital, no one knows exactly how imminent this threat was, so whether they were justified in this particular incident remains to be seen.

donvito99 wrote: »

But they can clearly set the agenda, with their fighter jets and drones and nukes and battle ships.

Really? Because I'd imagine the guys walking onto a train in Madrid, a bus in London or a plane in New York with bombs intended to kill hundreds of civilians are the ones setting the agenda to be honest.

Chuck Stone

seenitall wrote: »

In the right (or should I say wrong?) circumstances, everyone has it in themselves to kill anyone.

Well I guess so but we're talking about conflict rather than a 'lifeboat situation' where the rules go outthawinda.

seenitall

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Well I guess so but we're talking about conflict rather than a 'lifeboat situation' where the rules go outthawinda.

You think a lifeboat situation is extreme but conflict isn't?? Armed conflict (AKA war) is the mother of "rules outthawinda" situations everywhere.

donvito99

token101 wrote: »

Really? Because I'd imagine the guys walking onto a train in Madrid, a bus in London or a plane in New York with bombs intended to kill hundreds of civilians are the ones setting the agenda to be honest.

Tell that Iraqis, Afghans et al and tell me their lives are on hold less so than ours.

token101

donvito99 wrote: »

Tell that Iraqis, Afghans et al and tell me their lives are on hold less so than ours.

Yeah I'm sure the Afghanis hark back to life under the Taliban with fondness alright.

Chuck Stone

seenitall wrote: »

You think a lifeboat situation is extreme but conflict isn't?? Armed conflict (AKA war) is the mother of "rules outthawinda" situations everywhere.

What was all that Geneva Conventions business?

token101

Chuck Stone wrote: »

What was all that Geneva Conventions business?

Has there ever been a war where that has actually been observed???

--Kaiser--

Chuck Stone wrote: »

What was all that Geneva Conventions business?

Rules for wars. What a hilarious concept. "Don't shoot , I'm not ready yet!"

Chuck Stone

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Rules for wars. What a hilarious concept. "Don't shoot , I'm not ready yet!"

Well, I think it's more about making the systematic targeting of civilians, genocide, torture, use of chemical and biological weapons etc distinct war crimes.

People have ended up in the Hague for war crimes so it has been acted upon.

Conmaicne Mara

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Should the children of NATO soldiers be fair game in their home countries?

They already are.

Manic Moran

Chuck Stone wrote: »

If a Taliban or Al Queada militant, with an RPG, is standing outside the home of a high ranking officer in NATO and the guy is sitting down with his beautiful white wife and gorgeous 3 children, saying grace before meals, should the militant take the shot? Are the kids collateral damage in a conflict?

It's a fair question. The answer is probably 'yes' if the RPG is indeed the best weapon the militant happens to have capable of doing the job. If he has a sniper rifle, then better. If not, the rules require that you take best efforts, not absolute guarantees.

The RTE article implies that the NATO troops were receiving fire from the building. The BBC article indicates that there was a seven-hour-long engagement (which is huge, by Afghan standards) in which the air strikes were called in.

I'm not seeing the NATO forces as being at particular fault here right now.

Has there ever been a war where that has actually been observed???

By both sides? The Falklands comes to mind. The only proven breach of the conventions I am aware of was dealt with by the arrest and prosecution of the soldier in question (British soldier shot a prisoner).