• 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

I can see why you would think that. Would it surprise you to know the British lost more too friendly fire [from American pilots] than from the Iraqi forces.

A very important distinction.

It may just be a difference between American and British attitudes. For one, our 'Rules of engagement' have generally been far more defined, with less room for ambiguity.

Paul

It wouldn't surprise me and I don't see how that's an important distinction. Friendly fire is also expected in wars, no matter if it's your own or an ally. Again though, I'm not being blase about it!
 
It wouldn't surprise me and I don't see how that's an important distinction. Friendly fire is also expected in wars, no matter if it's your own or an ally. Again though, I'm not being blase about it!



We always called "friendly fire", "gawd damn ouch you mother ****er im goin to kill you" or some such. :prof
 
You are playing a semantics game. History and the realities of the situation make it so they are "expected". We can guess safely they will happen. We do work as hard as possible to make them as unlikely as possible, within the framework of the mission.

Not really 'playing a game'. But i can honestly say i never left a brief expecting civilian casualties and it was never referred to in that manner. Quite the opposite in fact.
I am not naive to think that in certain missions it would be highly likely. Perhaps its just me not liking the phrase/word 'expected'.


Paul
 
Last edited:
Not really 'playing a game'. But i can honestly say i never left a brief expecting civilian casualties and it was never referred to in that manner. Quite the opposite in fact.
I am not naive to think that in certain missions it would be highly likely. Perhaps its just me not liking the phrase/word 'expected'.


Paul

That is a different situation sorta. Our pilots never left a brief expecting civilian casualties either. They are not considered "acceptable", only "inevitable". You work as hard as you can, do everything in your power to ensure they do not happen, including taking more risks, but they do happen. Not as often as some people think, but neither humans or machines are perfect, and you cannot train for every situation, and there are limits to how much you can know about a situation beforehand.
 
If you will recall, you leaped into another discussion. I started here saying I could not comment on this case. I stated clearly that I saw no reason to doubt the testimony of the soldiers. I simply wanted to discuss if it was possible to criticize without the contempt your side so often shows. One person, Kelzie, gave a reasonable response and we continued that conversation, . . . again, not related to this case specifically.

But as the military will investigate and will charge if wrong doing is found, questioning the actions of the soldiers, any soldier or soldiers, is not inappropriate. And pointing out the consequences on the soldiers doing the shooting is not inappropriate either.

As for my "theories," I would suggest you read closer and seek to understand more than jumping around wildly and creating your own strawman. That way you might actually be able to address what was said and not what ever fantasy you seem to be addressing. ;)

Well, here's the second time I said it Rev.
 
That is what they are reporting, and I have no reason to dispute it. But was the bus anything but civilians? If that's all it was, they weren't scum bags and while it might not be criminal, it is surely a shame if they were only civilians. And being bother by that would be fair. I would bet those who did the shooting are bothered.

Fair means stepping back, waiting, hearing all the testimony out, learning and not assuming. Am I wrong about that?

It was stated here as well Rev.
 
As I have not pronounced them guilty, and have said repeatedly I have no way of knowing, your statement, if read the way you want it read, seems to be addressed to someone else. If you're talking to me, it must mean something else.

There's also this early one Rev.
 
"no way of knowing" and "no reason to dispute" is not the same as saying "they likely behaved within the rules" Sorry. Perhaps you should be more specific when you start a dialouge t avoid this sort of thing. :shrug:
 
"no way of knowing" and "no reason to dispute" is not the same as saying "they likely behaved within the rules" Sorry. Perhaps you should be more specific when you start a dialouge t avoid this sort of thing. :shrug:

All say the same thing, and don't forget: I saw no reason to doubt the testimony of the soldiers.

This means they likely behaved within the rules.
 
Back
Top Bottom