7 ms·

Checkout Ben Anderson's 2 part ~30 minute report from Afghanistan for Vice from around 10 years ago [0][1]. He was embedded with British troops and ANA during a

by dmos62 5y ago

Checkout Ben Anderson's 2 part ~30 minute report from Afghanistan for Vice from around 10 years ago [0][1]. He was embedded with British troops and ANA during a patrol with a lot of gun fights. The British strafed an empty field, almost bombed themselves twice and once an Apache launched a Hellfire missile into a compound with British and ANA troops in it and hit a building where a family with small children were hiding. Noone was hurt luckily. My point being, it's not always malice: sometimes it's just a chain of people making small mistakes and bad decisions that end up adding up. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_yOI_WVGdY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_yOI_WVGdY [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1JNuFPiTbs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1JNuFPiTbs

CyanBird 5y ago
> My point being, it's not always malice Correct, yet the malice lies on said situations being allowed to continue time and time again, and fester
notsureaboutpg 5y ago
The article says 2 innocent adults and a child were killed and not seemed civilian casualties. How is that okay? Even if it's an accident how can they artificially deflate the number of civilian casualties like that?
sandos 5y ago
Sounds very much like "Generation kill". Soldiers are happy when one day, finally, they kill more enemy combatants than civilians!
2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
It's never malice. Nobody goes, "hey, this compound is 100% only women and children, let's bomb it." Reality: "A patrol nearby said they took fire from the compound at such and such grid coordinates" It gets bombed. Turns out the unit on the ground was mistaken. War is hell. War criminals should be punished. But it's not a war crime to make a mistake. I love seeing these posts because it's clear that almost nobody here has experienced war. My ROEs were ridiculously strict on the ground in southern Afghanistan. It's important to have some context as well: > According to the United Nations, the Taliban and its allies were responsible for 76% of civilian casualties in Afghanistan in 2009, 75% in 2010 and 80% in 2011. So sure. Both sides have killed civilians. But one side tries it's best to be accountable and limit human suffering while still carrying out missions. The alternative is to not be there at all.
- trothamel 5y ago
  Thank you for this perspective.
- enriquto 5y ago
  > But it's not a war crime to make a mistake. I suppose that you are from the USA and your family is living there. Imagine that some afghan-controlled drone intended to kill some U.S. soldiers (a legitimate target because they are enemy combatants). But instead they kill your family. If it was a mistake, by the own account of the drone operator, would you still maintain that the killing of your whole family was not a war crime? Would you defend the drone operator in that case? Please notice that at the moment when they were killed, they were just enjoying a picnic in a field, minding their own business, unbeknownst that in another valley a few miles away there was a secret military training camp. I need to hear from you if you honestly think that the murderer of your family would be innocent in that case.
  - rscoots 5y ago
    There is such a thing as criminal negligence in choosing and attacking enemy targets. But no, adding a whole bunch of emotional baggage to the act does not suddenly make any collateral death a war crime as you imply here. Bombing runs are woefully innarcurate though, so the good thing is when we have better weapons we'll start using those instead. Unlike insurgency groups who will often kill civilians as a means. Think that was partly the above poster's point.
  - coding123 5y ago
    I'm going to be a little dismissive of the question, but that's how the laws work in the united states. If someone was drunk that's a little different, but from the perspective of someone making a mistake on the road, and a family ends up dead - the person that made the mistake (assuming they prove that in court) does not end up with a murder charge. It may still end up being manslaughter and jail time. Now to more specifically reply. So in the United States we may certainly have war on our doorstep at some point in the future. But our country tries to prevent that at ALL COSTS. We do so by making sure other countries are stable. We may fuck up by inserting into the wrong countries. but if ALL COUNTRIES just stabilize themselves we would NEVER have to go. And by the way, that's why the united nations was created. It would (or should) never allow the united states to insert themselves in a war that was not just. It may end up in an unjust position, but that's not where we started.
sp332 5y ago
But in this case it is malice. The Taliban destroyed cell phone towers so walkie-talkies were extremely common. Then the US declared every man with a walkie-talkie was a legitimate target.
- rscoots 5y ago
  >Then the US declared every man with a walkie-talkie was a legitimate target. Anywhere I can find info on this?
  - sp332 5y ago
    https://www.audacy.com/connectingvets/news/inside-america-failed-afghan-drone-campaign-against-taliban https://www.audacy.com/connectingvets/news/inside-america-fa... This link was posted in another thread and seems to be the source that broke the news today.
    - rscoots 5y ago
      Yea but you said the US "declared" "every" person w/ a radio a "target". This story doesn't show any of the 3 words I put in quotes. Edit: can I get an explainer on the downvotes to both my comments?
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - detaro 5y ago
        You could try to explain what you think the difference between > US declared every man with a walkie-talkie was a legitimate target. and the policy described in the article is, attempting that will likely lead you to why you are downvoted.
        rscoots 5y ago
        1. The US did not make any sort of declaration 2. Not everyone with a walkie talkie will have this new guideline applied to them. Even just going off the article, someone with a radio could be treated with suspicion by these new guidelines, as they could be a spotter. 3. They are not defacto a "target" as described above^, although that is what the poster claimed. The poster's statement was hyperbole to the point of being an outright lie.
sixothree 5y ago
If it's a choice between malice and incompetence then I say incompetence is malice.
didntknowya 5y ago
it's not malice. it's more the recklessness and carefree attitude towards collateral damage just because of the war mindset. like "looks like a threat, let's bomb it in case. if any innocents get hurt everyone will understand it's just a casualty of war"

by dmos62 5y ago

CyanBird 5y ago

> My point being, it's not always malice Correct, yet the malice lies on said situations being allowed to continue time and time again, and fester

notsureaboutpg 5y ago

The article says 2 innocent adults and a child were killed and not seemed civilian casualties. How is that okay? Even if it's an accident how can they artificially deflate the number of civilian casualties like that?

sandos 5y ago

Sounds very much like "Generation kill". Soldiers are happy when one day, finally, they kill more enemy combatants than civilians!

2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago

It's never malice. Nobody goes, "hey, this compound is 100% only women and children, let's bomb it." Reality: "A patrol nearby said they took fire from the compound at such and such grid coordinates" It gets bombed. Turns out the unit on the ground was mistaken. War is hell. War criminals should be punished. But it's not a war crime to make a mistake. I love seeing these posts because it's clear that almost nobody here has experienced war. My ROEs were ridiculously strict on the ground in southern Afghanistan. It's important to have some context as well: > According to the United Nations, the Taliban and its allies were responsible for 76% of civilian casualties in Afghanistan in 2009, 75% in 2010 and 80% in 2011. So sure. Both sides have killed civilians. But one side tries it's best to be accountable and limit human suffering while still carrying out missions. The alternative is to not be there at all.

trothamel 5y ago
Thank you for this perspective.
enriquto 5y ago
> But it's not a war crime to make a mistake. I suppose that you are from the USA and your family is living there. Imagine that some afghan-controlled drone intended to kill some U.S. soldiers (a legitimate target because they are enemy combatants). But instead they kill your family. If it was a mistake, by the own account of the drone operator, would you still maintain that the killing of your whole family was not a war crime? Would you defend the drone operator in that case? Please notice that at the moment when they were killed, they were just enjoying a picnic in a field, minding their own business, unbeknownst that in another valley a few miles away there was a secret military training camp. I need to hear from you if you honestly think that the murderer of your family would be innocent in that case.
- rscoots 5y ago
  There is such a thing as criminal negligence in choosing and attacking enemy targets. But no, adding a whole bunch of emotional baggage to the act does not suddenly make any collateral death a war crime as you imply here. Bombing runs are woefully innarcurate though, so the good thing is when we have better weapons we'll start using those instead. Unlike insurgency groups who will often kill civilians as a means. Think that was partly the above poster's point.
- coding123 5y ago
  I'm going to be a little dismissive of the question, but that's how the laws work in the united states. If someone was drunk that's a little different, but from the perspective of someone making a mistake on the road, and a family ends up dead - the person that made the mistake (assuming they prove that in court) does not end up with a murder charge. It may still end up being manslaughter and jail time. Now to more specifically reply. So in the United States we may certainly have war on our doorstep at some point in the future. But our country tries to prevent that at ALL COSTS. We do so by making sure other countries are stable. We may fuck up by inserting into the wrong countries. but if ALL COUNTRIES just stabilize themselves we would NEVER have to go. And by the way, that's why the united nations was created. It would (or should) never allow the united states to insert themselves in a war that was not just. It may end up in an unjust position, but that's not where we started.

sp332 5y ago

But in this case it is malice. The Taliban destroyed cell phone towers so walkie-talkies were extremely common. Then the US declared every man with a walkie-talkie was a legitimate target.

rscoots 5y ago
>Then the US declared every man with a walkie-talkie was a legitimate target. Anywhere I can find info on this?
- sp332 5y ago
  https://www.audacy.com/connectingvets/news/inside-america-failed-afghan-drone-campaign-against-taliban https://www.audacy.com/connectingvets/news/inside-america-fa... This link was posted in another thread and seems to be the source that broke the news today.
  - rscoots 5y ago
    Yea but you said the US "declared" "every" person w/ a radio a "target". This story doesn't show any of the 3 words I put in quotes. Edit: can I get an explainer on the downvotes to both my comments?
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - detaro 5y ago
      You could try to explain what you think the difference between > US declared every man with a walkie-talkie was a legitimate target. and the policy described in the article is, attempting that will likely lead you to why you are downvoted.
      - rscoots 5y ago
        1. The US did not make any sort of declaration 2. Not everyone with a walkie talkie will have this new guideline applied to them. Even just going off the article, someone with a radio could be treated with suspicion by these new guidelines, as they could be a spotter. 3. They are not defacto a "target" as described above^, although that is what the poster claimed. The poster's statement was hyperbole to the point of being an outright lie.

sixothree 5y ago

If it's a choice between malice and incompetence then I say incompetence is malice.

didntknowya 5y ago

it's not malice. it's more the recklessness and carefree attitude towards collateral damage just because of the war mindset. like "looks like a threat, let's bomb it in case. if any innocents get hurt everyone will understand it's just a casualty of war"