12 Children killed in a NATO issued airstrike in Afghanistan

[Aristeus]

it's a shame when civilians die, but it's a war and we don't do it on purpose... like those terrorist.

[Palmz]

It's despicable that these men would involve the dangers of children for their own personal safety. I'm talking about the Taliban.

[JoaoPinga]

If I were to write how I honestly feel about those people who defend acts like this saying "it's just war, deal with it", the moderators would ban three generations of my family, at least.
I mean, why are we even arguing? People need to be more empathetic before writing.

On a side note, how exactly this will reduce terrorism?

[N-7]

Part 2
So now they all have a free get out of jail card. All they need to do is keep little kids around them and we can never touch them.

Not a free get out of jail card, all I've said that a strike could have been carried a bit later I don't believe it is ridiculous to assume that he is going to leave his home eventually (after day or two at the latest).

[Bakis]

It's despicable that these men would involve the dangers of children for their own personal safety.

You actually think that the all these children has been in company of terrorists?

[Inay]

A question for you folks, what is more important to you people, killing this Al-Qaeda leader ASAP or ensuring that no civilians die?

If it was the later, then how can you accept an attack on the house when the NATO could have waited few hours and attacked him when he was out of the house?

I wouldn't start to question the need of the airstrike. They were at the battlefield, news described it as intense firefight. You don't wait for couple hours if the guy comes out on possibly hostile territory. You are seriously going to "what if" questions here. Its very different thing when police plays standoffs than when you are at combat in hostile environment.
You could also argue that you don't start shooting enemies while your children are inside the building where you shoot from. As I said previously its unneeded tragedy but not the first or last one. Civilian casualties are inevitable because of the way Taliban operates. Still drone strikes seem more civilian friendly than other aerial options available.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

Sad...I don't agree with this.

[Crym]

Why are we not blaming the ones using them as shields? NATO did not even know who was in their all they knew is they were under attack from that house.

This. It really sucks, but the people willfully sacrificing non-combatants for their "war" are the same people intentionally targeting them in other countries. If someone's sitting in the command chair using phrases like "acceptable collateral" that's one thing, but in a lot of cases these combatants are dressing like civilians, mingling with civilians, can be women and children, and are still shooting to kill.

This isn't conventional warfare, and the terrorists are people willing to break every rule in the book. That doesn't mean we should sink to their level, but that does mean you can't assume everything's going to be soldiers versus soldiers hitting conventional military targets.

[Urti]

Pretty much. Complains and whines that that people died in a war by one side yet if you were to point out the atrocities the Taliban commit: "Oh, but that's ok."

I always see "Drone Strike kills Civilians" yet none of the reports include information like "Enemy combatants using orphanages as mortar bases" because it doesn't support their agenda. Also, with a populationof over 35 million in Afghanistan, 7500 civilians killed over a 12 year conflict is a smaller death rate than goddamn horse kicks to the head. Guess all those evil american imperialist equines should be tried as war criminals....

[Palmz]

You actually think that the all these children has been in company of terrorists?

They use children as literally shields and take over homes with families ( not their own ) to use as a base while they fire on our forces without thinking of the collateral damage of children and women. The Taliban don't care about the Afghani citizens. They bomb, shoot, stab citizens everyday. Yes they are a despicable group of people.

[JoaoPinga]

1) Taliban kills some people in US.
2) Americans enlist on army seeking revenge.
3) US kills some people in Afghanistan.
4) Afghans enlist on Taliban seeking revenge.
< repeat ad-infinitum>

War is endless and pointless.

[N-7]

I always see "Drone Strike kills Civilians" yet none of the reports include information like "Enemy combatants using orphanages as mortar bases" because it doesn't support their agenda. Also, with a populationof over 35 million in Afghanistan, 7500 civilians killed over a 12 year conflict is a smaller death rate than goddamn horse kicks to the head. Guess all those evil american imperialist equines should be tried as war criminals....

You don't calculate death ratio that way, you're doing it wrong and just for your information, in all my posts I have avoided the use of "America, American, or US" to not let it derail into nation bashing. I also not once bashed any country involved in the operation.

Conclusion: you're making a fool out of yourself.

[Bakis]

They use children as literally shields and take over homes with families ( not their own ) to use as a base while they fire on our forces without thinking of the collateral damage of children and women. The Taliban don't care about the Afghani citizens. They bomb, shoot, stab citizens everyday. Yes they are a despicable group of people.

Who spoon-fed you all this if I may ask, that all the hundreds of dead children has been used as human shields?

[N-7]

They use children as literally shields and take over homes with families ( not their own ) to use as a base while they fire on our forces without thinking of the collateral damage of children and women. The Taliban don't care about the Afghani citizens. They bomb, shoot, stab citizens everyday. Yes they are a despicable group of people.

Just so you know, at least in this case this was his home and those whom died were his family. Also, I am not arguing that The Taliban are despicable but it doesn't mean that we want to sink to their level.

[Kasierith]

Who spoon-fed you all this if I may ask, that all the hundreds of dead children has been used as human shields?

Well, personally if I were going to go up against rather potent military forces, I would want to be as distanced as my family from possible in order to protect them from harm... but ya, I don't see any evidence that children were actively used as shields. More in the realm of gross negligence than anything.

[Rooflesstoofless]

Not a free get out of jail card, all I've said that a strike could have been carried a bit later I don't believe it is ridiculous to assume that he is going to leave his home eventually (after day or two at the latest).

Coalition forces and the Taliban were already engaged in armed conflict when the air support was provided. They aren't going to call a time out or retreat to give them a possible escape because kids were inside.

If anything, you should be upset with the Taliban because they chose to shoot it out. They could have easily decided that the lives of those children were worth something and turned themselves in peacefully. Pictures seem oddly abscent when the Taliban are killing women and children because of their wacky beliefs, but its Kodak time if NATO creates a casualty of war.

[Bakis]

How were they suppose to know he had kids in there? HE WAS SHOOTING AT THEM.

Please tell me where the rules of war specificy that you are allowed to fire into civilian houses not having a clue which people are there just that you are fired upon from that house.

"ops, we didn't know" doesn't go very far.

---------- Post added 2013-04-24 at 06:45 PM ----------

Well, personally if I were going to go up against rather potent military forces, I would want to be as distanced as my family from possible in order to protect them from harm... but ya, I don't see any evidence that children were actively used as shields. More in the realm of gross negligence than anything.

Proportionality
The principle of proportionality deals with what kind of force is morally permissible in warfare. It suggests that the injury caused should be proportional to the objective desired, and that the extent and violence of warfare must be tempered to minimise destruction and casualties.[16]

Safeguarding certain fundamental human rights of persons who fall into the hands of the enemy, particularly prisoners of war, the wounded and sick, and civilians.

From the laws of war. Firing into non-military houses having no clue at all who is in there violates that among other things.
If you are the agressor, going into a residential area you just dont fire wherever you see fit.

[N-7]

Coalition forces and the Taliban were already engaged in armed conflict when the air support was provided. They aren't going to call a time out or retreat to give them a possible escape because kids were inside.

I am questioning the timing of the whole raid and not the air strike only, why raid his home when you could put him under surveillance for few hours and attack him on the road?

If anything, you should be upset with the Taliban because they chose to shoot it out. They could have easily decided that the lives of those children were worth something and turned themselves in peacefully. Pictures seem oddly abscent when the Taliban are killing women and children because of their wacky beliefs, but its Kodak time if NATO creates a casualty of war.

Nutjobs are expected to do crazy things, sane people aren't.

[Kasierith]

Please tell me where the rules of war specificy that you are allowed to fire into civilian houses not having a clue which people are there just that you are fired upon from that house.

"ops, we didn't know" doesn't go very far.

Perhaps you should outline where exactly this is expressly forbidden? It pretty clearly falls under self defense in that specific situation. It also means that the one who initiated the shooting with his family right there is directly to blame for their deaths.

[Bakis]

Perhaps you should outline where exactly this is expressly forbidden? It pretty clearly falls under self defense in that specific situation. It also means that the one who initiated the shooting with his family right there is directly to blame for their deaths.

Updated the post while you wrote this