• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US troops fire on Afghan bus, killing at least 5 civilians

WillRockwell

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 29, 2009
Messages
1,950
Reaction score
387
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I totally support our military efforts in Afghanistan, but incidents like this make me question if our military can be trusted to prosecute a war without killing innocent people. What rules of engagement could possibly justify opening fire on a crowded bus?

U.S. Troops Fire on Afghan Bus, Killing at Least 5 Civilians - NYTimes.com
 
In your opinion, does our military every do anything right?
 
From your article


The American military confirmed the shooting but there were disputes over details, including whether the troops who fired on the bus had first shot flares and warned the driver to stay back.





but don't let that stop you from smearing the US and the Troops for your politics before all the facts are in. :roll:
 
Aside from not having a solid breakdown of details from the incident - there is also a lack of communication about the events and even what happend to the driver and whether or not he was killed:


One thing that's often made quite clear is that immediate reports are never accurate - it takes quite a bit of time for them to interview all those involved and hear all sides of the story. Thus, in the beginning is too soon to draw any accurate conclusions.
 
This I can understand. The troops in the convoy ahead saw the bus slow down. What they were thinking was that this on this bus their was a bomb capable enough of destroying the other military convoy that the driver was "supposely" allowing for him to pass by. So that once the convoy was at the side of the bus the bus would blow up and BOOM! the military convoy is destroyed with every soldier in it. If anything those troops in the convoy ahead saved lives.
 

Par for the course for anti military folks
 
American said:
In your opinion, does our military every do anything right?
Click to expand...

Ignoring this article for a moment, just a question, is it possible to ever criticize the military on any action they take? Or is any criticism always seen as being anti military? I really am curious.
 

Is it possible to engage in any war without killing civilians? I mean, it's hardly a requirement of war, it's just something nice if it happens. Much like it would be nice if I found $100 bill while grocery shopping. I'll appreciate it, but I won't expect it as part of my grocery shopping experience. Civillian deaths are to be expected from war.
 

It is however, one reason war should be avoided if possible. The willingness to enter a war too readily leads to these types of things, which is why our leaders deserve more criticism than they have received.

Still, even saying that, war isn't a blank check to do anything. There are still lines and the question will be and should be did these people cross any line.
 
Boo Radley said:
It is however, one reason war should be avoided if possible. The willingness to enter a war too readily leads to these types of things, which is why our leaders deserve more criticism than they have received.
Click to expand...

Agreed. However, that is not the topic of this thread, nor the fault of the military.

Boo Radley said:
Still, even saying that, war isn't a blank check to do anything. There are still lines and the question will be and should be did these people cross any line.
Click to expand...

Of course not. Civilian deaths from this war isn't even approaching civilian deaths during, say WWII though. It's something to be avoided, though not at the expense of our forces or the mission.
 

I don't think the level matters that much to this topic. One death wrongly inflicted would still be wrong. The question here rests on whether these soldiers crossed the line or not. I can't answer that, so I haven't tried to. But that would be the question and being at war would not excuse them if they crossed the line and there was no circumstance that fully explained it.

As for our leaders, they share in the responsibility, so their mention is appropriate IMHO.
 

The "line" is necessarily a little blurry in a combat situation. These are our guys fighting in a hostile environment. As long as they didn't knowingly and intentionally fire at civilians, I don't see much of an issue.
 
Kelzie said:
The "line" is necessarily a little blurry in a combat situation. These are our guys fighting in a hostile environment. As long as they didn't knowingly and intentionally fire at civilians, I don't see much of an issue.
Click to expand...




Exactly, it's a non issue. If they thought thier lives were on the line, and acted in good faith, there is no issue.
 

You need to move past the headline and check out the details. Let's get into those details:

The American-led military command in Kabul called the killings a “tragic loss of life” and said troops fired not knowing the vehicle was a bus and believing that it posed a threat to a military convoy clearing roadside bombs from a highway.
Click to expand...

The sad truth is that the first time they do not respond, American lives are going to be lost.

The shooting in Kandahar occurred just after daybreak...
Click to expand...

Notice this important detail. It was probably not very bright out yet, visibility was down.


Holy ****, this does not sound like some slaughter of the innocent, but soldiers doing everything they can to not have to shoot, being ignored, and doing what had to be done to protect their own lives and their mission.

I wonder what General McChrystal has to say about this type situation...


Now, this situation is tragic. No one is going to argue that. There may be ways to change how we do things to better avoid these situations, and considering McChrystal puts winning hearts and minds as a key to victory over there, I am willing to bet it will be looked at. The facts are disputed in this case, which means no one knows really, including you Will, whether the soldiers acted appropriately. I would guess they did, and I will take the words of our troops on this, they are trained to be situationally aware.

Stop and think about this again, best guess is you have a large vehicle of unknown purpose approaching at a high rate of speed a convey out clearing mines. Another convey is close. Attempts are made to signal the vehicle to stop. It does not. What are you going to do in that situation Will? Take the chance of losing a large chunk of a convoy and risk the lives of our young men?
 
Kelzie said:
The "line" is necessarily a little blurry in a combat situation. These are our guys fighting in a hostile environment. As long as they didn't knowingly and intentionally fire at civilians, I don't see much of an issue.
Click to expand...

We can't say what they knew at this point, but I would dispute that. Again, they are not give free rein to do anything. They have rules of engagement, and must follow those rules. Some circumstances may well explain and midigate, but killing innocent people will always and should always be an issue. It will be an issue for those young men even if they had reason and they crossed no lines. Pretending otherwise is not fair to them either.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Exactly, it's a non issue. If they thought thier lives were on the line, and acted in good faith, there is no issue.
Click to expand...

The key word is if. Neither of us can know at this moment, but if is the key word. And like I said, even if that is true, knowing they killed innocent people will have an effect on them, making it an issue.
 
Boo Radley said:
The key word is if. Neither of us can know at this moment, but if is the key word. And like I said, even if that is true, knowing they killed innocent people will have an effect on them, making it an issue.
Click to expand...



I give them, US troops, our brothers and sisters the benefit of the doubt.... there is no "if" in my book at this point.
 

I never said free reign. I gave rules about the level of risk I was comfortable with our forces taking before firing on someone. If they know someone is a civilian and they intentionally shoot them, that's bad and should be punished. Any other situation...as long as it's not habitual, I'm not the one being shot at on a daily basis. I'm not going to judge what they need to do to feel safe and get back to their families.
 
Boo Radley said:
The key word is if. Neither of us can know at this moment, but if is the key word. And like I said, even if that is true, knowing they killed innocent people will have an effect on them, making it an issue.
Click to expand...

The odds of them not acting in good faith, that they intended to smoke a few civies, is slim to none. That does not mean mistakes where not made, they may have been, But they still acted in good faith to try and perform their duty and do the right thing.

Trust me, this will be investigated. The military loves to investigate things. People will look for ways to improve the way these soldiers handle the situation, either by showing the soldiers involved where they made those mistakes, or by changing the rules if appropriate. It is one of the things the military does, and it's why we have the best military in the world.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
I give them, US troops, our brothers and sisters the benefit of the doubt.... there is no "if" in my book at this point.
Click to expand...

In other words, you don't really want to know. You merely want to believe regardless of facts. We don't know the facts, and I accept that. But your statement is one that suggests you would not care what the facts are, and I can't support that.
 

That's not the only way they could break the rules. Being too shaky, too quick to act, too reckless could also be a problem. It is not enough to say they feared something. There would also have to be reason to fear it, to be concerned, following a proper procedure. All professionals are held to such standards. They always have been.

Nor am I asking you to judge. Not me either for that matter. But there are those charged with doing that, and they may well find fault. If they do, then there may well be good reason for it. If they don't, then there may well be reason for that as well.
 
Boo Radley said:
In other words, you don't really want to know. You merely want to believe regardless of facts. We don't know the facts, and I accept that. But your statement is one that suggests you would not care what the facts are, and I can't support that.
Click to expand...

No, that is not it. Our soldiers are trained to be situationally aware, much moreso than a bunch of random people in a bus. When there is conflicting testimony, the odds on favorite is that the soldiers view of the situation is more accurate. Further, our soldiers are some of the best people in our country, and as such deserve the benefit of the doubt, until and unless such time as they are proven to be wrong.

And again, this will be investigated. People are going over the testimony and data from the encounter right now, I guarantee it.
 
Boo Radley said:
In other words, you don't really want to know. You merely want to believe regardless of facts. We don't know the facts, and I accept that. But your statement is one that suggests you would not care what the facts are, and I can't support that.
Click to expand...




Wow, if you live in the land of unicorns and tooth fairies, I could see how you arrived at that conclusion, but since we are in reality, I'll try to explain my clear point so that you don't feel so left out.



As other have suggested, there is little to no chance they did this for ****s and giggles, and giving them the benefit of the doubt in no way indicates a lack of desire for an investigation.



On what basis do you think its a 50/50 proposition that they may or may not have done this on purpose?



Sad really. seeing you post something indicating a lack of "innocent until proven guilty" for those who serve. Shame.
 

Yes, I agree it is slim, but not impossible. I suspect it is more likely a mistake if anything, and probably an understandable one. What I object to is the sheer notion that any question means lack of support.

And yes, I think it will be investigated, and mostly in a fair way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…