Comments:NATO troops kill four people on bus in Afghanistan

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. Please remain on topic and avoid offensive or inflammatory comments where possible. Try thought-provoking, insightful, or controversial. Civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Use the "Start a new discussion" button just below to start a new discussion. If the button isn't there, wait a few seconds and click this link: Refresh.

Start a new discussion

Comments from feedback form - "I wonder why driver didn't sto..."

I wonder why driver didn't stop. Check points and convoys are all over afghanistan so it wasn't probably his first encounter...

89.24.6.103 (talk)12:33, 13 April 2010

Perhaps he was trying to keep to a schedule? Bus drivers have been known to do that...

64.222.125.209 (talk)01:10, 14 April 2010

Is it too much to ask that people actually look at the facts and not immediately try to politicize what's happening? KD3P only asked for positive stories, and while they are less common they do exist in Afghanistan just like any other place. It's a bit disturbing that that is all it takes to cause some people to revert to elementary school antics of name calling (though you didn't help your cause by doing the same thing KD3P).

As for military victories, those aren't really positive stories since it still reads "a bunch of people got killed" the sides don't matter it's still unfortunate. The most positive stories are those of fostering trust with locals and helping them. Do any of you know that we hand out school supplies to the kids in Afghanistan and Iraq? Doesn't get reported much cause it's not sensational enough, but it happens. There are a lot of other things like that too. Those are good stories to me.

I feel bad that a buss load of civilians got fired upon and killed, but as someone who is in the US military and currently deployed, I don't think it's fair to play arm chair general about the actions the troops took.

Standard operating procedures for a check point are to signal the driver to slow down and stop their vehicle at least 100 meters out. If the driver continues you fire a warning shot, then a killing shot (this is subject to change under the ROE for that area/command). This progression can all take place in a matter of seconds. When we did this in an exercise it went from signalling to shooting less than 10 seconds. Depending on the speed and distance of the vehicle headed towrd the checkpoint it could be more or less than that.

Also it should be noted that the reason vehicles are stopped that far out is because if they're packed with explosives they probably wont kill the people at the checkpoint at that range (though it's not exactly gauranteed).

From the description of the incident the troops there did exactly what they were trained to do. I would like to know why the driver felt that speeding toward people with guns was a good idea, or why he didn't stop. Personally I wouldn't it seems like a good way to get shot, for reasons that are all too apparent at this point.

And yes I know that I'm biased toward giving the military the benefit of the doubt, but from the report this doesn't seem like one of the times a scared or trigger happy soldier shot someone. As you've all pointed out there are already a lot of those stories out there.

214.13.167.252 (talk)16:23, 18 April 2010

"Standard operating procedures for a check point are to signal the driver to slow down and stop their vehicle at least 100 meters out. If the driver continues you fire a warning shot, then a killing shot (this is subject to change under the ROE for that area/command). This progression can all take place in a matter of seconds. When we did this in an exercise it went from signalling to shooting less than 10 seconds. Depending on the speed and distance of the vehicle headed towrd the checkpoint it could be more or less than that."

That is pure evil, and an outright Violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

If the United States had the cojones to join the International Criminal Court they would be held accountable for these daily war Crimes

71.161.196.109 (talk)03:32, 1 May 2010

Um, citation needed? What clause of the Geneva convention does this practice violate? It seems pretty reasonable to me.

64.195.2.114 (talk)02:21, 24 August 2010
 
 
 
 

Can you guys

post positive stories for once? Its always negative feedback from Afghanistan but never about what the Taliban do.--KDP3 (talk) 01:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

KDP3 (talk)01:12, 13 April 2010

always interesting to here Rupert Murdoch's two cents, or is it Sarah Palin

64.222.125.209 (talk)22:47, 13 April 2010

Glad to see is here Sean Penn here.--KDP3 (talk) 00:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

KDP3 (talk)00:13, 14 April 2010

Thanks for the compliment, Sean Penn is a great actor

64.222.107.35 (talk)03:02, 15 April 2010

Indeed, Although, I never fancied him as such until I saw his brilliant performance in MILK, Alas, such a regrettable story of intolerance...

HaroldWilson'sWar (talk)05:31, 17 April 2010
 
 
 

Positive stories? There are no positive stories coming out of Afghanistan. Nothing good has happened in that country since the 1970s. Do you want us to make things up to make you feel better? Fine. "Everything is great in Afghanistan. Women aren't getting acid tossed in their faces by Taliban supporters. NATO troops never accidentally hit civilians. NATO troops and Taliban forces sit down together and play Chinese checkers for no apparent reason. There is no violence. Nothing to see here, move along. Move along."

Better?

Gopher65talk03:09, 15 April 2010

I'm asking for reports on military victories! --KDP3 (talk) 07:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

KDP3 (talk)07:08, 15 April 2010

cf. Fox News if you'd like to only hear reports of the "glorious victories" of the "good guys". It's important that stories such as these emerge, since there's little effort in the major media to uncover them. Certainly there are more "positive" reports coming out of Afghanistan, but to ignore the numerous darker issues is know-nothingness. --Wolfcm (talk) 18:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Wolfcm (talk)18:36, 15 April 2010

I'm glad I work up the hornet nest for asking for both side of the reporting and thinking asking for a positive stories for once from this "news" site is a bad thing. You guys can go back to reporting like MSNBC.

KDP3 (talk)21:25, 15 April 2010

KDP3: I don't think our coverage is unbalanced, but if you think that it is there is a simple solution: write some positive coverage about NATO's efforts in Afghanistan. This isn't Fox, MSNBC, or CNN. When they write a "bad" story (bad is a matter of opinion, hence the scare quotes) the only thing any of us can do is rant and complain in the comments section. The great thing about Wikinews is that YOU can help right any perceived wrongs in our coverage:).

So please, take us to task for our poor coverage by writing the type of story that you wish to see on the front page. It usually takes between one and 2 and a half hours to write a short to medium length article, source it, and format it properly for publication. If we've made a mistake, then right our wrongs. Don't take the standard apathetic "meeeeehhh, let someone else do it" approach. That inaction is deadly for any community or society.

Gopher65talk03:22, 17 April 2010
 

No thanks, All MSNBC tries to do is outfox Fox, albeit slightly less so than CNN

HaroldWilson'sWar (talk)05:19, 17 April 2010
 
 
 

Perhaps the "positive" reports about Afghanistan should run like this:

Throughout the nation, people are planting flowers: Consider the lilies...ahem poppies - OPIUM Poppies

HaroldWilson'sWar (talk)05:27, 17 April 2010
 
 

Comments from feedback form - "not bad, short to the point, h..."

not bad, short to the point, hard hitting, and moreover objective. just what i want

205.196.184.187 (talk)19:29, 13 April 2010