Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Afghan Targets May Include "Children with Potential Hostile Intent"

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    691

    Afghan Targets May Include "Children with Potential Hostile Intent"

    GET THE "H" out of their country!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    This is insanity, and I am almost to the point of cheering for those who are trying to expel a foreign invader.

    I would hope that my 12 y/o old would find the courage pop some invaders in this country once that time comes.



    http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/for...hostile-intent


    Monday, 10 December 2012 20:30
    Afghan Targets May Include "Children with Potential Hostile Intent"
    Written by Jack Kenny




    A recent comment by an U.S. Army officer about looking for "children with potential hostile intent" has increased concerns about targeting policy and the killing of civilians in Afghanistan.

    The statement was attributed to Army Lieutenant Colonel Marion Carrington in a Marine Corps Times article of December 3 that appeared under the headline, "Some Afghan kids aren't bystanders." In recounting an incident in mid-October in which three Afghan children — ages 8, 10 and 12 — were killed in Helmond Province, the Times article described Marines directing a strike at "three shadowy figures that appeared to be emplacing an "improvised explosive device" in the ground. The Marines got clearance for air strike, the Times said and "took out the targets."

    The article appears to contradict earlier accounts of the killing. While the Marine Corp Times article indicates the children were the shadowy figures targeted in the strike, the International Security Assistance Force in Kabul issued a statement at the time of the incident saying it might have "accidentally killed three innocent Afghan civilians." A New York Times article dated October 19 said the children were out gathering dung for fuel, and quoted the governor of a neighboring province who said the children were "wandering by" when they were struck by shrapnel from a strike on Taliban members who were placing the explosives in the ground. Major Adam Wojack, a spokesman for the coalition forces, said at the time that reports of the children killed were being investigated.

    "I.S.A.F. did conduct a precision strike on three insurgents in Nawa district, and the strike killed all three insurgents," Wojack said. "None of our reporting shows any civilian casualties or any children." Yet a tribal council member who found the children's bodies said he did not see any other bodies in the area. And while earlier reports had described the action as an air strike, the New York Times ran a correction in its October 19 article, nothing that military officials said the "precision strike" was an artillery barrage.

    The Marine Corps Times article cited statements by military officials claiming the Taliban often use children to carry out their missions or as a shield, and the children may have been recruited to plant explosives. The Guardian of London last week cited<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> a statement by a U.S. official who said the Marines has seen the children digging a hold on a dirt road and "the Taliban may have recruited the children to carry out the mission."

    There were 36 documented cases of underage recruiting in the war in 2011, the Marine Corps Times said, citing an April 2012 United Nations report. Eleven children, including an eight-year-old girl, were killed in Afghanistan while carrying out suicide attacks, the report said. Human Rights Watch also reported a sharp increase in the Taliban's deployment of children in suicide bombings, some as young as seven.

    "It kind of opens our aperture," said Army Lt. Col. Marion "Ced" Carrington, whose unit, 1st Battalion, 508th Parachute Infantry Regiment, assists the Afghan police. "In addition to looking for military-age males, it's looking for children with potential hostile intent." That set off alarm bells among some counterterrorism experts and human rights groups.

    "I have great respect for people who put themselves in harm's way," Amos Guiora, a University of Utah law professor who spent years in the Israeli Defense Forces, told The Guardian. "Carrington is probably a great guy, but he is articulating a deeply troubling policy adopted by the Obama administration, he said. "That is beyond troubling. It is also illegal and immoral."

    "This is one official quoted," said Pardiss Kebriaei, a lawyer with the Center for Constitutional Rights whom The Guardian identified as a specialist in targeted killings. "I don't know if that standard is what they are using but the standard itself is troubling," she said, adding, "If you are looking to create a paradigm where you increase the 'aperture' — that scares me. It doesn't work, operationally, morally or practically."

    The Obama administration has frequently come under criticism for the way it counts civilian casualties, as well as for its deliberate targeting of terrorists and their supporters for extra-judicial killings — the administration disputes the term "assassination" — in locations outside any battlefield. The president's secret list of persons designated for targeted killing is said to include U.S. citizens operating outside the United States. Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born Muslim cleric who published an online Jihadist magazine, was targeted and killed by a drone strike in Yemen. Samir Khan, an American citizen and the editor of Awlaki's magazine, was traveling with Awlaki and was killed in the same attack. A later drone strike killed Awlaki's 16-year-old American-born son Abdulrahman.

    Obama has also implemented a policy for counting civilian casualties designed to keep the count artificially low. John Brennan, the president's counter-terrorism adviser, claimed in a 2011 speech that not a single non-combatant had been killed in a year of U.S. air strikes. Another senior administration official told the New York Times that civilians killed by drone strikes in Pakistan numbered only in "single digits," despite reports of hundreds of deaths from various sources. But the Times in a May 29, 2912 report, based on interviews with more than three dozens current and former cabinet members, counselors, and advisers to the president, said administration policy has been to count all military-age males killed in a strike zone as combatants unless there is explicit posthumous evidence to the contrary.

    "Al Qaeda is an insular, paranoid organization — innocent neighbors don't hitchhike rides in the back of trucks headed for the border with guns and bombs," an administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told the Times.

    Such a loose definition of combatants lends itself to a wide range of prospective targets, from children digging in the ground to farmers with a truckload of fertilizer, who might be mistaken for bomb makers. There is virtually no limit to the number of activities that might show "potential hostile intent."

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    Would you shoot a 12 year old with a shotgun pointed at you? I know I would.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Quote Originally Posted by Orphan View Post
    Would you shoot a 12 year old with a shotgun pointed at you? I know I would.
    As would I, and I'd double-tap one with an AK.

  4. #4
    Regular Member SFCRetired's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Montgomery, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    1,770
    Any Vietnam Veterans on here? If so, ask them what kids did during that little unpleasantness.

    Understand something: In Afghanistan, and quite a few other countries, we are dealing with enemies who are, if anything, far more fanatical than even the Viet Cong were. Given my choice, I'd much rather fight someone who is politically motivated than someone who is motivated by religious extremism.
    "Happiness is a warm shotgun!!"
    "I am neither a pessimist nor a cynic. I am, rather, a realist."
    "The most dangerous things I've ever encountered were a Second Lieutenant with a map and a compass and a Private who was bored and had time on his hands."

  5. #5
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    Quote Originally Posted by SFCRetired View Post
    Any Vietnam Veterans on here? If so, ask them what kids did during that little unpleasantness.

    Understand something: In Afghanistan, and quite a few other countries, we are dealing with enemies who are, if anything, far more fanatical than even the Viet Cong were. Given my choice, I'd much rather fight someone who is politically motivated than someone who is motivated by religious extremism.
    I am a Vietnam Vet, yes, we had the same problem..age does not matter..young...like 5, 6, 7,, or old granny types. Did they know what they were doing...I think so.

    I absolutely agree with the statement...get our Boys (and Girls) out of there. The Russians were smart enough to leave, we should be too.

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran MSG Laigaie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Philipsburg, Montana
    Posts
    3,135
    Quote Originally Posted by hermannr View Post
    Did they know what they were doing...I think so.
    I, too, spent a bit of time in SE Asia. Yes they used children. The unscrupulous have always used the weak as shields. Is it psychological warfare or cowardice? This tactic is not new, it has been around as long as there has been warfare. Do all really know what they are doing?, I do not think so.
    "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference .When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." -- George Washington

  7. #7
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ashland, KY
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by Orphan View Post
    Would you shoot a 12 year old with a shotgun pointed at you? I know I would.
    Yes I would.

    The question that should be asked however is why are we in their country controlling their way of life? The Afghanistan Government did NOT invade our country, and we should not have went to war with EITHER country.

    If people came here and took over our country and tried to tell us how to live would you take up arms against them? Hell yes you would, as would I! We demolish their homes, roads, mosques, and their way of life because of their resources.

    I support our Troops more than anyone and I don't believe we should be risking the lives of America's bravest for the interests of the wealthy!

    Bring them home NOW!

    We should not be in that country or any other at this time, and I resent the President (current and former) and Congress (current and former) for them still being there!
    "I never in my life seen a Kentuckian without a gun..."-Andrew Jackson

    "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined."-Patrick Henry; speaking of protecting the rights of an armed citizenry.

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff. State View Post
    SNIP "I.S.A.F. did conduct a precision strike on three insurgents in Nawa district, and the strike killed all three insurgents," Wojack said. "None of our reporting shows any civilian casualties or any children." Yet a tribal council member who found the children's bodies said he did not see any other bodies in the area. And while earlier reports had described the action as an air strike, the New York Times ran a correction in its October 19 article, nothing that military officials said the "precision strike" was an artillery barrage.
    Somebody needs to write this one down as an example of Newspeak from the Ministry of Truth. Only the Ministry of Truth would try to claim an artillery salvo is a precision strike.

    Notice I used the word salvo. I'm being charitable. A barrage is even less precision; I think that word is likely a journalistic error.

    Think about it for just a moment. What's the smallest artillery shell the US is using these days? 155mm? Those things have a casualty radius of about 100 meters. So much for precision.

    Now, lets look at salvo and barrage. The whole reason for launching one shell from multiple guns at the same time (called a salvo) is because you're not sure they're going to land exactly on the target's head. Same for launching multiple shells from each of several guns (called a barrage).
    Last edited by Citizen; 12-12-2012 at 03:30 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    What a reporter writes and what the interviewee says sometimes has only a casual relation to the truth.
    Is there a link to the actual words spoken by the spokesperson? When "precision strike" is quoted and artillery barrage isn't, it gives me pause.
    Last edited by Fallschirmjäger; 12-12-2012 at 03:51 PM.

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger View Post
    What a reporter writes and what the interviewee says sometimes has only a casual relation to the truth.
    Is there a link to the actual words spoken by the spokesperson? When "precision strike" is quoted and artillery barrage isn't, it gives me pause.
    Me, too.

    Two points:

    1. The artillery part of the report was run as a correction.

    2. Nothing you do with artillery counts as precision. Even a single shell from 155mm has a casualty radius of about 100m. (Casualty radius used to be defined as 50% of the personnel within the radius will become casualties.) And, a single shell assumes you're already dialed-in or had a system so accurate you could land the first shell right on the button. Before GPS, guns had to shoot a few shells at a location, and forward observers communicated corrections, walking the impacts onto the target. I'm guessing GPS has made that a lot easier; but to get it exactly right with one shell, you would have to know the GPS coordinates of the exact spot beforehand, or maybe be able to figure out the coordinates with a high degree of precision based on the pre-known GPS coordinates of something nearby. Of course, the more error in the guess-timation, the farther that single shell is going to land from the spot. And then you have to add the 100m casualty radius to that.

    I take that back. There used to be a laser-guided artillery shell. Called the copperhead or something. Was originally developed for use against armor if I recall. I'm guessing it is still around or maybe even improved. Since a bunch of the shell would be taken up by guidance system, it would have a lesser blast than a plain old high-explosive round, meaning a smaller casualty radius. I suppose something like that could fit the term precision strike.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    691
    Quote Originally Posted by KYGlockster View Post
    Yes I would.

    The question that should be asked however is why are we in their country controlling their way of life? The Afghanistan Government did NOT invade our country, and we should not have went to war with EITHER country.

    If people came here and took over our country and tried to tell us how to live would you take up arms against them? Hell yes you would, as would I! We demolish their homes, roads, mosques, and their way of life because of their resources.

    I support our Troops more than anyone and I don't believe we should be risking the lives of America's bravest for the interests of the wealthy!

    Bring them home NOW!
    We should not be in that country or any other at this time, and I resent the President (current and former) and Congress (current and former) for them still being there!


    Exactly!

    WHEN the Chinese or UN troops are on our streets, American kids who have been taught right will be the same as the "hostile combatants" in Afghanistan.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    210

    Re: Afghan Targets May Include "Children with Potential Hostile Intent"

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff. State View Post
    Exactly!

    WHEN the Chinese or UN troops are on our streets, American kids who have been taught right will be the same as the "hostile combatants" in Afghanistan.
    The rightness of the war aside, using a minor as a combatant is a war crime.

    Killing those minor combatants is not only legal, the responsibility for the deaths fall on the Taliban.

    By the way, its the Taliban and not the Afghan govt or people we are fighting.

    Shrug... While the war itself may be dubious, the afghan people have been hijacked by a fringe element and have lost their freedoms.

    Whether its our place to help them or not is another story I guess.

    In my view, the Afghanistan part of the war was justified. The Taliban participated in 9/11 and sheltered bin Ladin. They also oppress the Afghan people.

    Iraq was the bs part of the war based on lies. We did nothing in Iraq but give the radical elements a foot hold that wasn't there. Trading a violent dictator with a violent radical group...


    Tap'n while driving...
    Last edited by Anonymouse; 12-12-2012 at 06:24 PM.

  13. #13
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ashland, KY
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by Anonymouse View Post
    The rightness of the war aside, using a minor as a combatant is a war crime.

    Killing those minor combatants is not only legal, the responsibility for the deaths fall on the Taliban.

    By the way, its the Taliban and not the Afghan govt or people we are fighting.

    Shrug... While the war itself may be dubious, the afghan people have been hijacked by a fringe element and have lost their freedoms.

    Whether its our place to help them or not is another story I guess.

    In my view, the Afghanistan part of the war was justified. The Taliban participated in 9/11 and sheltered bin Ladin. They also oppress the Afghan people.

    Iraq was the bs part of the war based on lies. We did nothing in Iraq but give the radical elements a foot hold that wasn't there. Trading a violent dictator with a violent radical group...


    Tap'n while driving...
    It is also a war-crime to go to war and invade a country that has not attacked us or our resources! The children have had to grow up being strip-searched and being witness to the destruction the military brass has made our enlisted men and women accomplish.

    Our enlisted men and women do not want to be there, and they are coming home completely different because of what they have seen and what they had to do while there.
    "I never in my life seen a Kentuckian without a gun..."-Andrew Jackson

    "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined."-Patrick Henry; speaking of protecting the rights of an armed citizenry.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    210

    Re: Afghan Targets May Include "Children with Potential Hostile Intent"

    Quote Originally Posted by KYGlockster View Post
    It is also a war-crime to go to war and invade a country that has not attacked us or our resources! The children have had to grow up being strip-searched and being witness to the destruction the military brass has made our enlisted men and women accomplish.

    Our enlisted men and women do not want to be there, and they are coming home completely different because of what they have seen and what they had to do while there.
    Afghanistan did attack us technically.

    I believe Bin Laden planned it, as a leader of Al Qaeda based in Afghanistan , protected by the Taliban which controlled the govt of the aforementioned country.

    So...

    As to wanting to be there... When does a soldier want to be there and when has that ever mattered? And why focus in the enlisted and forget the officers and warrant officers?

    Listen I agree with you. To hell with being the world police and if people want to be free then they should free themselves.

    But that doesn't mean your argument is correct or that the war in Afghanistan is illegal. Unethical and unwanted perhaps.

    Tap'n while driving...
    Last edited by Anonymouse; 12-12-2012 at 07:14 PM.

  15. #15
    Regular Member SFCRetired's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Montgomery, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    1,770
    Quote Originally Posted by KYGlockster View Post
    It is also a war-crime to go to war and invade a country that has not attacked us or our resources! The children have had to grow up being strip-searched and being witness to the destruction the military brass has made our enlisted men and women accomplish.

    Our enlisted men and women do not want to be there, and they are coming home completely different because of what they have seen and what they had to do while there.
    Whether you, or anyone else, realizes it, we are under attack on a daily basis. The attack is a little more insidious than open warfare, but it is there. As to whether or not we invaded a country that had not attacked us, I believe you will find that the Taliban supported several different attacks on U.S. interests and caused U.S. casualties.

    That said, if you look long and hard at history, you will find that the British could not subdue the Afghans although they did conquer India and the Russians, failing to learn from that history, repeated the British mistake. Now, the United States, failing to learn from either history lesson, is doing the same thing.

    A very apt definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

    Personally, I am very much in favor of having no American soldiers, sailors, airmen, or Marines stationed on any foreign soil. Most of these countries where American military are stationed want the money that comes with them, but do not want the military personnel and, in fact, are neither friendly nor supportive of the United States.
    "Happiness is a warm shotgun!!"
    "I am neither a pessimist nor a cynic. I am, rather, a realist."
    "The most dangerous things I've ever encountered were a Second Lieutenant with a map and a compass and a Private who was bored and had time on his hands."

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    691
    The VERMIN that occupy our Nations capital have done more to destroy this nation and our "Freedoms" that any foreign enemy could ever dream of. The oaths so many of us took when joining the military have been rendered MEANINGLESS by our willingness to kill others in third world countries and our APATHY regarding the TRUE ENEMY that is killing The Constitution and this Nation.


    The Taliban offered to hand over bin laden after 9-11, they just wanted to be presented with the evidence. The day bin laden was supposedly killed, the FBI STILL failed to mention Sept. 11 on his "Most Wanted" page in his list of crimes. Why? They admitted there was not enough evidence!


    We don't belong in that country ANYMORE regardless of whether we ever did. Killing kids there now is destroying lives of Afghans and the SOULS of American GIs.

  17. #17
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by SFCRetired View Post
    Any Vietnam Veterans on here? If so, ask them what kids did during that little unpleasantness.

    Understand something: In Afghanistan, and quite a few other countries, we are dealing with enemies who are, if anything, far more fanatical than even the Viet Cong were. Given my choice, I'd much rather fight someone who is politically motivated than someone who is motivated by religious extremism.
    We shouldn't be there. Especially if it is a religious war.

    If we want to fight against "extremism" (I prefer the term fanaticism) we should do it on a more of a cultural level. Bollywood is already doing more to undermine Muslim fanaticism than a war that creates martyrs and rallies the people against an enemy.

    We can use pop culture to overturn fanaticism. It seemed to have work in our own country and against Soviet Union.

    http://reason.com/archives/2011/02/0...d-vs-bin-laden
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    691
    This is Obama's version of "No Child Left Behind".

  19. #19
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff. State View Post
    This is Obama's version of "No Child Left Behind".
    Ouch!
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •