Vekkinho Posted September 9, 2009 Posted September 9, 2009 NATO aircraft strike two hijacked fuel trucks (tankers) and 90 civilians got injured or killed. NATO members Germany and US pass the ball to deflect the blame: http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=105494§ionid=351020403 http://atlanticreview.org/archives/1322-US-German-Tensions-over-Airstrike-in-Afghanistan.html [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
AlphaOneSix Posted September 9, 2009 Posted September 9, 2009 and 90 civilians got injured or killed. That's a number that is still wildly in debate. Nobody seems to know how many civilians were injured or killed, but it certainly wasn't 90. I'm not trying to trivialize the death of innocent people, but at the same time it does nobody any good to over-dramatize the event.
L4key Posted September 9, 2009 Posted September 9, 2009 (edited) ...and Terry Taliban are appealing on human rights grounds! That'll be the same Taliban that cut off the hands of dissenting voters and stone women. :doh: Don't get me wrong I'm a little on the fence and undecided when it comes to the war itself but some things really are BS. Edited September 9, 2009 by L4key
joey45 Posted September 9, 2009 Posted September 9, 2009 ...and Terry Taliban are appealing on human rights grounds! Thats a joke on it's own... Say the Geneva convention and they'll laugh at you before cutting your head off..... The only way to make sense out of change is to plunge into it, move with it, and join the dance. "Me, the 13th Duke of Wybourne, here on the ED forums at 3 'o' clock in the morning, with my reputation. Are they mad.." https://ko-fi.com/joey45
Vekkinho Posted September 9, 2009 Author Posted September 9, 2009 Airstrike ain't an option if you've got civilians in the target area, be it a Taliban or his wives. Those might have been armed mujas around the trucks but who's gonna prove that now! 1 [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
-Bazong- Posted September 9, 2009 Posted September 9, 2009 That's a number that is still wildly in debate. Nobody seems to know how many civilians were injured or killed, but it certainly wasn't 90. I'm not trying to trivialize the death of innocent people, but at the same time it does nobody any good to over-dramatize the event. Indeed, it's important that all measures be taken to avoid killing civilians (and I have all confidence that this is usually the case). The publics opinion or over dramatization about the event goes to show that people care about innocents are not killed/injured, which is a good thing I thinks, that people care that is.. It's imperative to keep a very high standard in terms of respecting human rights and to take responsibilty for any mistakes made, so as to make it clear to everyone what the difference is between the Taliban and the occupants (or whatever they should be called)...
4c Hajduk Veljko Posted September 9, 2009 Posted September 9, 2009 It was very bad and irresponsible decision to bomb that truck with so many people around. The real question is what was the objective of bombing a stuck vehicle that could be bombed at any time? 1 Thermaltake Kandalf LCS | Gigabyte GA-X58A-UD3R | Etasis ET750 (850W Max) | i7-920 OC to 4.0 GHz | Gigabyte HD5850 | OCZ Gold 6GB DDR3 2000 | 2 X 30GB OCZ Vertex SSD in RAID 0 | ASUS VW266H 25.5" | LG Blue Ray 10X burner | TIR 5 | Saitek X-52 Pro | Logitech G930 | Saitek Pro flight rudder pedals | Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit
Vekkinho Posted September 9, 2009 Author Posted September 9, 2009 ...and the price of fuel these carried was less than a price of bombs used! [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
GGTharos Posted September 9, 2009 Posted September 9, 2009 (edited) Stealing military transports ain't an option when you know you're going to get JDAMed for it. What if the truck was recovered by them and then used effectively to drive a nice IED into some place they normally couldn't? At the very least it would have allowed them slightly greater freedom of motion in some respects. Just leaving it there is literally 'lending aid to the enemy'. If you want to steal from a military in what's practically a warzone that's great - maybe it'll make you feel like Robin Hood, but it's your neck on the line, period, end of story. Airstrike ain't an option if you've got civilians in the target area, be it a Taliban or his wives. Those might have been armed mujas around the trucks but who's gonna prove that now! Edited September 9, 2009 by GGTharos [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
nscode Posted September 9, 2009 Posted September 9, 2009 I don't see that in UN conventions, GG. They are very clear on use of excesive force, however. Never forget that World War III was not Cold for most of us.
RedTiger Posted September 9, 2009 Posted September 9, 2009 (edited) Why not ask the hijackers why they decided to drive the stolen truck in an area populated by civilians? If you care enough about their lives, and you personally willing to take on the risks, why not keep away from them? Edited September 9, 2009 by RedTiger
GGTharos Posted September 9, 2009 Posted September 9, 2009 What would you have them use? Looters tend to be shot, no? Would you just leave them be? I don't like people being killed but what's the working solution here? I don't see that in UN conventions, GG. They are very clear on use of excesive force, however. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
nscode Posted September 9, 2009 Posted September 9, 2009 I'm not talking about moral debates here. You simply can not destroy an area to get one guy and one truck. You are to go down and put a bullet in his head. Never forget that World War III was not Cold for most of us.
GGTharos Posted September 9, 2009 Posted September 9, 2009 I suppose they could've sent a CH-47 with marines there for it, in that case. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
nscode Posted September 9, 2009 Posted September 9, 2009 Yes Never forget that World War III was not Cold for most of us.
RedTiger Posted September 9, 2009 Posted September 9, 2009 I'm not talking about moral debates here. You simply can not destroy an area to get one guy and one truck. You are to go down and put a bullet in his head. For clarity: you're speaking in a legal sense of what you can and cannot do, not in a judgement call on what is right and wrong, correct?
Maximus_G Posted September 9, 2009 Posted September 9, 2009 Airstrike ain't an option if you've got civilians in the target area, be it a Taliban or his wives. It happens so frequently there. This case stands out by the number of deaths, nothing else.
nscode Posted September 9, 2009 Posted September 9, 2009 For clarity: you're speaking in a legal sense of what you can and cannot do, not in a judgement call on what is right and wrong, correct? Yes. Never forget that World War III was not Cold for most of us.
Wilde Posted September 9, 2009 Posted September 9, 2009 I don't wanna be an ass, but I think those civilians weren't as innocent as it is said now. They knew the terrorists had hijacked it. They were there for one reason: steal some gas. There was an interview with an Afghan boy who supposedly was a victim of the air strike. He told the reporters straight away, that his father had forbidden him to go there but he went anyways to grab some loot. For what it's worth, doing an air strike because of two stolen fuel transporters is just ridiculous. the entire mission probably was 10 or 100 times more expensive than these trucks. We should act more cleverly. Like for example embargo that village for 4 weeks, because of looting or something. They need to know, that working with the terrorists will only hurt them. But we should not blow them up for it.
topol-m Posted September 9, 2009 Posted September 9, 2009 Like for example embargo that village for 4 weeks, because of looting or something. They need to know, that working with the terrorists will only hurt them. But we should not blow them up for it. The situation is more complex. There are regions with no constant coalition military presence. These villagers do not get to chose to work or not with "terrorists", they either do or get shot. The bombs are not helping here. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
4c Hajduk Veljko Posted September 9, 2009 Posted September 9, 2009 GG, I did not say that the truck should be left alone and given to Taliban. What I am saying is why bombing a truck, with so many people around it? From what little info is available, the truck was stuck and could not move and it could be bombed at any time. Or a warning shots could be fired so that the people would flee ... Killing so many people is just plain wrong, not to even mention other legal aspects. Although, it is a vaste of time talking legality with big powers .... Yes, the military has every right and responsibility to destroy its weapons and not allow the other side to use it. What if the truck was recovered by them and then used effectively to drive a nice IED into some place they normally couldn't? At the very least it would have allowed them slightly greater freedom of motion in some respects. Just leaving it there is literally 'lending aid to the enemy'. Reminder: SAM = Stealth STOP! Thermaltake Kandalf LCS | Gigabyte GA-X58A-UD3R | Etasis ET750 (850W Max) | i7-920 OC to 4.0 GHz | Gigabyte HD5850 | OCZ Gold 6GB DDR3 2000 | 2 X 30GB OCZ Vertex SSD in RAID 0 | ASUS VW266H 25.5" | LG Blue Ray 10X burner | TIR 5 | Saitek X-52 Pro | Logitech G930 | Saitek Pro flight rudder pedals | Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit
Namenlos Ein Posted September 9, 2009 Posted September 9, 2009 Interesting consequence. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/Afghanistan/article6825321.ece — Last orders for troops arriving for daily duty with hangovers http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/6153744/Alcohol-banned-on-Afghanistan-base-after-troops-party-too-hard.html The head of the international forces in Afghanistan has banned alcohol at its headquarters after troops were found to be too drunk or hungover to respond quickly to news of a deadly air strike. General Stanley McChrystal tried to contact his subordinates after a Nato strike killed 125 civilians, but too many had been “partying it up” and could not be raised.“The Kunduz incident provided an opportunity for him to articulate his concerns in this regard, but it was not the cause of the order nor is there any indication at this point that alcohol consumption was somehow a factor in the incident.” He added that the decision was driven partly by respect for Muslim culture.
Vekkinho Posted September 9, 2009 Author Posted September 9, 2009 (edited) Why not ask the hijackers why they decided to drive the stolen truck in an area populated by civilians? If you care enough about their lives, and you personally willing to take on the risks, why not keep away from them? Perhaps because civilians needed fuel ;) I'm aware of the fact that number of casualties is the one of the reasons for this action getting into press and other media...The other reason is US washing it's hands and blaming Germans for it. Actions like this are usually forwarded by US forces to other NATO members ;) We all remember Spanish Hornet pilots refusing to strike civilian targets in Allied Force campaign! Jagged alliance, huh?! Edited September 9, 2009 by Vekkinho [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
topol-m Posted September 9, 2009 Posted September 9, 2009 Quote: "Soldiers at the Nato base in Afghanistan: General Stanley McChrystal found, to his fury, that many of his underlings were either drunk or hungover." Edit: unbelievable :doh: [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
Wilde Posted September 9, 2009 Posted September 9, 2009 The situation is more complex. There are regions with no constant coalition military presence. These villagers do not get to chose to work or not with "terrorists", they either do or get shot. The bombs are not helping here. True, but on the other hand I doubt there would be NATO transports going through these regions. Anyways, what I meant is, that we could try to penalize them somehow without actually killing them or threatening their lives directly. Bombing the shit out of them we will never end the war.
Recommended Posts