Comments:Afghan government claims U.S. air strike killed dozens of civilians

Back to article

Wikinews commentary.svg

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

  • Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
  • Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
  • You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading


Murder ManslaughterEdit

I don't see how anyone can even attempt to believe that the US government is in any way legitimate after this. Almost 50 innocent civilians have been murdered. It's is great of someone wants to fight terrorism, but only if they don't become terrorists themselves. The US Goverment has killed more people than any terrorist group in history (between 100,000 and one million in the current Iraq war alone) and I urge people to never glorify any terrorist groups, including one's that claim to be legitimate Anonymous101 (talk) 16:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Read #Bogus Headline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.70.115.28 (talk) 17:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and all the human rights groups that agreed with the Afghan reaction can also not be trusted? Anonymous101 (talk) 17:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Trusting locals in a terror hosting zone is like trusting a crack whore to use the aid money you give her for anything other than crack. Like you would tell the police the truth if a terrorist was holding your sister hostage and paying your 3 brother's "resistance" tuition. As to your question, "Human Rights" Groups always side with what locals tell them, it is part of the prerequisite for them to get their financial backing that they "show results" regardless if the information was properly verified. Don't be naive, everybody's got their political interests.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.70.115.28 (talk) Signed at 18:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
"Don't be naive, everybody's got their political interests." This also applies to the US Government, which you seem to trust completely. I know I have no proof hat these claims are accurate, but based on the previous actions of the US Government it seems very likely. Anonymous101 (talk)
Get off you high horse. The US government is "legitimate" by whatever measures for such abstact things. People assign too much value to human life. The truth is there are plenty of us around a few lost here and there is ok as long as it is for the greater good. From what environmentalists are telling us, we need a good culling for the good of the planet. --SVTCobra 18:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
And would you say that if half your family was killed in the attack? Anonymous101 (talk) 18:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
And would you say that if half your family was killed in a terrorist attack? 87.70.115.28 20:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Based on previous BBC/Guardian errors when it comes to taking the words of locals, it seems more likely that the correct information is somewhere in the middle. I don't trust either side - you seem to give way to much distrust to a democratic state over a recently Taliban controlled area currently run over by terrorists.
I doubt this particular one was murder. Crimminal, sure, but murder involves deliberatly hitting them, this seems more like 'couldn't give a shit if I did or not'. I'm not sure what they need prosecuted for, probably manslaughter. Doesn't matter, they never will be. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, you are probably right that it was manslaughter. Anonymous101 (talk) 18:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm a bit picky round that one, I have a relative who used to prosecute for a living... Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
It's a war! Your notions of civil law don't apply. --SVTCobra 18:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, they do to civilians. And, regardless, there are rules about how to fight wars, too. Just no-one with enough balls to enforce them. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I am guessing that you are refering to the Fourth Geneva Convention which is entitled "Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War". Please show me the article that discusses manslaughter or whatever "rules" you think exist. --SVTCobra 23:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
You should review what these rules say about culpability of an army working within a terrorist infiltrated zone. The problem is that terrorists make civilians/resistance-fighters into valid marks on purpose because their entire tactic is based on the premise of indoctrination and abuse of war-time laws. The media seems to always somehow distort the story in their favor which is mind boggling but understandable considering these people threaten and kill journalists who dare tell the story differently than the terrorists hoped... just see the Palestinian celebrations of the 9.11 attacks and how those images are now removed from the AP website and the story "vanished" into thin air. Btw, you think Bin Laden's son cared about rules of war when he quipped “Accelerate the destruction of America, Britain, France and Denmark.”?[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.70.115.28 (talk) 18:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
The rules are to plan attacks carefuly and wisely. If a large group of civilians is about, then it isn't a good idea today. How about the next day? It would be different if there was reason to believe they may strike literally now, and immediate action is required but went sadly awry, but otherwise action should be done carefuly to prevent as many civilian casualties as possible. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
The US is doing exactly what you are suggesting and attacking with very few civilian casualties in comparison with previous wars. The Taliban, however, is doing it's best to have as many civilians killed... do you have any liberal minded legal related complaints towards the "kill all infidels" Taliban? Perhaps you should tell them that they should prevent as many civilian casualties as possible in person... go there and tell them that and see if it works. While you're at it, tell them that teaching children to hate is bad (read the second half from the link).
So you are happy with the US killing because the Taliban does it. Presumably you think the Taliban is a terrorist group. And if you think the the US can do something because the Taliban do it you must be happy with the US Government being a terrorist group.Anonymous101 (talk) 19:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
You really need to inspect how the definition thingy works. You're (a) not making much sense comparing the US with the Taliban, and (b) making a pretty ugly personal attack suggesting I'd like the US to become like the Taliban. Also, the Taliban is clearly a terrorist group (i.e. a group who systematically use terror tactics as a means of coercion for political gain) and dealing with terrorists is a major problem in international law, but it is dealt with and attacks into a place where terrorists hide among civilians is considered the fault of the terrorists, not the power trying to deal with them. 87.70.115.28 20:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
We know that doesn't work. That's why there are troops killing them. But the troops out dealing with them should not lose sight of why their there. It isn't to kill, it's to kill the right people. I agree the US is far better than the Taliban. That doesn't get them off the hook, though. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Blood Red Sandman summarized it best: "But the troops out dealing with them should not lose sight of why their there." - I for one don't believe they have but Anonymous101 seems to trust they did. I believe his "thesis" is based on distorted statistics rather than a serious inspection into basic international laws regarding legality of dealing with terrorists. This claim, that the United States kills civilians on purpose also shows some serious lack of understanding of the situation on the ground and possibly ultra-liberalism (a.k.a. anarchism). In reality, the deaths of civilians due to American actions are half those of the deaths resulting from terrorist activity and in the long run, this activity will prevent future deaths and establish far higher level of human rights being implemented. No, it's not ok when uninvolved civilians get killed, but it is non-the-less a fact that the US is doing no worse in that matter than any other country trying to sort out terrorist mess (Have you looked into how Lebanon just dealt with it's terrorists in Nahr al Bared? Have you seen how the UK is handling it's terrorists issue?) and by the looks of things, it's activity has certainly created a better situation for Americans had they not engaged with the terrorists on their own turf. Also looks like a better situation for the majority of Iraqis (Shia) who were tortured and weighed down upon under the Sunni rule of Saddam. 87.70.115.28 20:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Bogus HeadlineEdit

I don't see how anyone can even attempt to believe Afghanistan officials. Almost 50 militants are claimed to suddenly be innocent civilians. It's is great of someone wants to fight terrorism, but the media is giving these terrorists's word more value than it should carry. The title for the article should be - Afghan officials claim militnats were innocent civilians.

I urge people to never take terrorists words for granted, we've all seen the w:Jenin Massacre claims where Saeb Erekat charges secret graves and more than 500 massacres innocents, but when the Palestinian investigations became public, the outcome was 56 casualties with approx. 10 civilians while some civilians were used as a "ruse of war" style war crime to lead Israelis into a trap (Israel fought with foot soldiers in an urban-battlefield instead of attacking from the air).—Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.70.115.28 (talk) Signed at 18:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

That is misguided. By default you have allowed your personal biases to absolve those who acted of any responsibility. This entire incident should be thoroughly investigated, and everything prosecuted. THAT is the only valid comment. 72.146.181.23 20:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Not everything is to be prosecuted. It is within the nature of war that soldiers make mistakes, and to suggest that anyone going to war to protect his country will be sent to prison upon some faulty missile or some reasonable error of judgment would suggest that this soldier would rather not do his duty and the job will not get done. It's very easy to attack these people, but to walk a mile in the shoes of a soldier is a little more difficult than to walk that mile in an air conditioned mall where your most difficult choice would be between fast food or healthier food. 87.70.115.28 23:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Soldier can and should be prosecuted for taking inappropriate actions. To claim that a soldier's life is somehow more noble than a civilian's is a step towards creating a special military class and against a free society. Fortunately that is not the dominant philosophy here, or in U.S. military courts. Soldiers are trained to make difficult decisions correctly—that is what they are paid to do. Weapon malfunctions are malfunctions, but in the same vein negligence is negligence. That is why I emphasis the investigation point. Glorification does not excuse anyone if they have wrongfully killed another human. 72.146.181.23 00:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I never said it should not be looked into. However, war is war and it's got slightly differnt rules than daily standards we hold civilians to. 87.70.115.28 08:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Extremely biasedEdit

This article is, to put it mildly, extremely biased. Not even CNN, the epicenter of liberal news in America, would post something like this. The former headline was massively inappropriate and has since been changed by me to the more NPOV one used now. On Wikinews, we all need to remember that we're reporters, not spokespeople for our political beliefs. Articles like this can seriously discredit Wikinews as a reliable news source. --WNewsReporter (talk) 21:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. that is why it was linked to the BBC and the Guardian and the editor who initially wrote it (Annonymous101) added his personal "I accuse" note titled "Murder" (Gah!) in the opinions section. 87.70.115.28 23:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
And you fixed that by removing the two quote boxes. (Which were in fact added by someone who seemed to suppor these actions) Anonymous101 (talk) 05:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Support what? I don't support your distorted "America sucks" version and I improved on it some and noted here that the title was bogus. I may not agree with all the changes, but the title change was 100% correct. 87.70.115.28 08:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Supported the actions by the US government. By the way, I totally agree that the title change was correct as it could give the wrong impression to the reader. Anonymous101 (talk) 08:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Fuck yeah, I support the US engaging terrorists on their own turf. I don't support anything else you were implying. 87.70.115.28 13:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

War is no walk in the park. Kill 'em all and let the God sort 'em out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.16.86.179 (talk) 15:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Political BullshitEdit

Stop useless arguments! They have no place here. It got better when MrM and Neut left before, don't make things bad again! 65.1.135.46 17:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Barring some of the overly accusatory rhetoric - and the swearing - this is precisely what the Comments namespace is for. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)