by sf 5 Replies latest jw friends
A U.S. airstrike on a convoy thought by the Pentagon to be Taliban or al-Qaida leaders instead killed Afghan tribal elders who were heading to the capital Kabul for Saturday’s inauguration of a new interim government, a Kabul official said Friday. A press report from the region said up to 65 people were killed.
< http://www.msnbc.com/news/676390.asp
sKally
If we could depend on the Afghans for proper logistics they wouldn't be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Maybe they were trying to protect their kinsmen and passed some wrong info out.
Who knows War is Hell.
Maybe the bomb squds that are searching for land mines should be made up of the Talaban soilders instead of the USA, Brits AND Aussies.The last three mentioned are the ones getting their feet, legs, and arms blown off.
Friendly fire has also killed the some of us too.
Who knows War is Hell.
Why is it that each time an American soldier gets injured, it makes dramatic headlines (plus a nice "home story" about his proud parents), but each time another soldier or a non-combatant is killed, we hear, almost in a knee-jerk reaction manner, the same old rationalisation crap like "war is hell"? (That is, if we hear anything at all!)
It makes me fucking sick that civilian casualties are generally shrugged off as "inevitable, unintended collateral damage that nobody should make a lot of fuss about", but as soon as a combatant on "our side" (whichever that is) is only slightly injured, it's big news and the person is considered a hero and whatnot.
War is hell? Yes, definitely. Guess what, I know, I've been to war zones twice in my life (though not as a heroic gun-toting soldier, just as a sissy Red Cross helper). But it's hell for _everybody_ involved. So we either quit whining about anybody, including those poor soldiers "defending freedom", or we start whining about each and every person that's affected by war. Specifically those persons who didn't choose to be affected.
f.
edited (grammar)
If we could depend on the Afghans for proper logistics they wouldn't be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Maybe they were trying to protect their kinsmen and passed some wrong info out.
Well why didn't the convoy call in advance to let the military know , " This is the Northern Aliance team planning on taking a convoy to Kandarhar, we will be on such and such road at such and such time. We are going to set up the new Government and our Tribes' Elders are with us."
I'm sorry you get upset, but logistical errors happen.
I'm sorry you get upset, but logistical errors happen.
Yes, and they do happen on the side of the U.S. as well. They might have screwed up, as has happened many, many times before - incompetence or malice, who knows. But that's not my what gets me upset: it's the fact that casualties on "the other side", or on no side at all, are rationalised away in any way possible, as opposed to casualties on the "own" side. The self-censorship of CNN, as one example, is simply outrageous, but I blame the recipients more than the media.
I also get upset about wisecrack armchair commandos who talk about war from the comfortable safety of their own homes when they've never heard so much as a gunshot except on the sacred Tee-Vee (I'm not specifically referring to you!), but that's another story - I guess we all have our sensitive spots.
f.
This results when there is too much reliance on remote control war! If there was more hand to hand encounters....these would result in less slip ups...but possibly more US casualties.
ISP
