That's your entire SOP on spurstalk. All your statements are generalities and anecdotal at best.Quote:
Originally Posted by spursncowboys
Printable View
That's your entire SOP on spurstalk. All your statements are generalities and anecdotal at best.Quote:
Originally Posted by spursncowboys
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archi...5/2258210.aspxQuote:
U.S. ADMITS THREE WOMEN KILLED IN RAIDFrom NBC's Jim Miklaszewski
Senior military and Pentagon officials acknowledge that U.S. special operations forces inadvertently killed three women during a commando operation in Afghanistan in February, but deny allegations that the American forces tried to cover it up.
On Feb. 12, shortly after midnight in Gardez, U.S. Special Operations forces, along with Afghan forces were on a nighttime raid to capture a known Taliban operator responsible for a major impovised explosive device, or IED, operation. When they came upon the compound, a man armed with an AK-47 emerged and was shot dead by U.S. snipers. A short time later, a second man, also armed with an AK-47, appeared in a doorway, and he too was shot dead by at least two snipers firing five to six shots. Military officials say it is now evident the three women were in the room behind the man shot in the doorway.
By the time the larger unit of Special Forces arrived at the compound, family members had apparently moved the bodies of the two men into a seperate room along with the bodies of the three women. The military's forensic investigators have photos of all five bodies together, some already prepared for burial. By then, family members had also apparently attempted to wash down the walls in the room where the male victim was shot in the doorway.
The intial ISAF (US/NATO) incorrectly stated that while U.S. forces shot the two men, it appeared the three women were killed before the raid.
A seperate Afghan investigation, based on interviews with family members the day after the attack, determined the three women were shot by U.S. forces. The father of one of the dead women also claimed U.S. soldiers had dug bullets out of the women's bodies and the wall in an apparent attempt to hide the evidence.
U.S. officials say the soldiers did dig two slugs out of a wall, in an attempt to identify the sources of the bullet holes, but deny they attempted to retrieve any bullets from the bodies.
ISAF and the U.S. military have opened a third investigation in an effort to reconcile the differences in the two reports.
"The military did not reveal how the Reuters staff were killed, and stated that they did not know how the children were injured."Quote:
Originally Posted by spursncowboys
"Reuters has been trying to obtain the video through the Freedom of Information Act, without success since the time of the attack."
"After demands by Reuters, the incident was investigated and the U.S. military concluded that the actions of the soldiers were in accordance with the law of armed conflict and its own 'Rules of Engagement'."
------------------------------------------
Those 'Rules of Engagement' can be found on Wikileaks if you're interested too.
Now, obviously this was a fuck up by somebody and shit like this happens all the time during war time. It would be disingenuous to think otherwise.
What's stupid is to try to hide it, and even attempt to justify it.
I actually believe that the vast majority of operations are not like that one, and are done with great care to minimize civilian casualties.
What LnGrrrR was pointing at, is that the line is really blurred about who are civilians and who are not. You can't just merely say that you can blaze through with Apaches because one guy in the crowd allegedly had a gun.
I mean, you could, but it opens the gates for mistakes like the one above. Stuff that sooner or later is going to be known and it's going to reflect badly on you. It will, at the very least, go against the 'winning hearts and minds' approach.
They thought they had weapons in that video, but this will probably lead them to start the practice of getting better visual confirmation on potential threats.
It looked like two or three of them did have weapons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaolin-Style
If they were truly part of a "military", then they wouldn't be illegal combatants. That's kinda what makes tehm illegal combatants; they don't know openly hold arms or wear signifying uniforms. There's really only two categories, in my mind: military, or civilian. Now, those civilians can engage in guerilla warfare, or can be trained, or any number of things. But if they don't fit the specific criteria for being recognized as military under the Geneva Conventions, then they're not military.Quote:
Originally Posted by spursncowboys
I can only hope. :toastQuote:
Originally Posted by spursncowboys