Innocent people get killed in every conflict across the planet.
A "number" is 33 dead
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8527627.stm
As aAdolf Eichmann once said about holocaust.
"..10 is a lot, 100 more and anything over that is a statistic.." (or words to that effect)
And this was not even in area where NATO is engaged in a large offensive
We reap what we sow
Innocent people get killed in every conflict across the planet.
I have a worry here. (Apart obviously from the appalling loss of life).
I am reasonably aware of the many air sorties being carried out across Afghanistan and there nature has been of close air support. So a GR4 or whatever would be called by ground forces for a show of strength or as a last resort a bomb or missile run on a target that was an immediate threat.
Without knowing what was the action being engaged in here, it appears to me that this is more akin to strategic bombing, if NATO are targeting the movement of insurgents.
The connection to Holocaust is to show how immune we have come to the killing of innocent people.
.
The people who died were in three minibuses travelling in convoy in daylight. I doubt this is how resistance fighters travel
Isn't "news" a funnny thing.
We are now getting a string of headline news stories when there is a civilian death in Afghanistan, yet about 500,000 civilians lost their lives as a result of the Iraq invasion. Are they the 'un-people' then, and therefore no need to report on them ?
No, it's the same old tactics, one dead American soldier and there is outcry at home but kill as many Afghani women and children as you like, it aint gonna lose us any votes.
The message to Afghanis is simple, stay at home and you get your house bombed just in case there is a resistance fighter in there. Try to make it to safety and get your vehicles bombed on the off chance you are resistance fighters on their way to attack us.
Ignoring Fred's usual. The BBC news (telly) reported an investigation has been called into whether this strike adhered to rules of engagement.
Like the investigation into the rogue missile that killed a Afghani family earlier this month? They found that the missile wasn't faulty, it was aimed at the family, carry on as normal lads.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUST...2F+Top+News%29
You know Fred, I read your posts and in my opinion you do have some good points.
Within the rules of engagement....made up as one goes along... dependent upon the circumstances.
Similar to heavy water released at a Nuke plant, or contaminated air....after 72 hours or so as it has dissipated..now within acceptable limits....
Yes collatoral damage....but why are we there?? Could it be the almighty Oil??
And guess what...we, as the average person will never know.
Aghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...it's too complicated....
Well, lets' disband the all armed forces and then we won't be able to rampage around the planet deliberately slaughtering thousands of civilians.
There's a simple answer to those who point and shout every time civvies get killed in a conflict that they personally disagree with.
Job done.
So it's ok to kill someone providing that it is done withing the "Rules of engagement" What a completely stupid supposition.
Wars are fought on a simple basis - kill or be killed.
You play to your strengths, We bomb from the air and the other side use IED's (improvised explosive device).
Bookmarks