Comments:NATO troops kill four people on bus in Afghanistan
|Thread title||Replies||Last modified|
|Comments from feedback form - "I wonder why driver didn't sto..."||4||02:21, 24 August 2010|
|Can you guys||14||05:42, 17 April 2010|
|Comments from feedback form - "not bad, short to the point, h..."||0||19:29, 13 April 2010|
I wonder why driver didn't stop. Check points and convoys are all over afghanistan so it wasn't probably his first encounter...
Perhaps he was trying to keep to a schedule? Bus drivers have been known to do that...
Is it too much to ask that people actually look at the facts and not immediately try to politicize what's happening? KD3P only asked for positive stories, and while they are less common they do exist in Afghanistan just like any other place. It's a bit disturbing that that is all it takes to cause some people to revert to elementary school antics of name calling (though you didn't help your cause by doing the same thing KD3P).
As for military victories, those aren't really positive stories since it still reads "a bunch of people got killed" the sides don't matter it's still unfortunate. The most positive stories are those of fostering trust with locals and helping them. Do any of you know that we hand out school supplies to the kids in Afghanistan and Iraq? Doesn't get reported much cause it's not sensational enough, but it happens. There are a lot of other things like that too. Those are good stories to me.
I feel bad that a buss load of civilians got fired upon and killed, but as someone who is in the US military and currently deployed, I don't think it's fair to play arm chair general about the actions the troops took.
Standard operating procedures for a check point are to signal the driver to slow down and stop their vehicle at least 100 meters out. If the driver continues you fire a warning shot, then a killing shot (this is subject to change under the ROE for that area/command). This progression can all take place in a matter of seconds. When we did this in an exercise it went from signalling to shooting less than 10 seconds. Depending on the speed and distance of the vehicle headed towrd the checkpoint it could be more or less than that.
Also it should be noted that the reason vehicles are stopped that far out is because if they're packed with explosives they probably wont kill the people at the checkpoint at that range (though it's not exactly gauranteed).
From the description of the incident the troops there did exactly what they were trained to do. I would like to know why the driver felt that speeding toward people with guns was a good idea, or why he didn't stop. Personally I wouldn't it seems like a good way to get shot, for reasons that are all too apparent at this point.
And yes I know that I'm biased toward giving the military the benefit of the doubt, but from the report this doesn't seem like one of the times a scared or trigger happy soldier shot someone. As you've all pointed out there are already a lot of those stories out there.
"Standard operating procedures for a check point are to signal the driver to slow down and stop their vehicle at least 100 meters out. If the driver continues you fire a warning shot, then a killing shot (this is subject to change under the ROE for that area/command). This progression can all take place in a matter of seconds. When we did this in an exercise it went from signalling to shooting less than 10 seconds. Depending on the speed and distance of the vehicle headed towrd the checkpoint it could be more or less than that."
That is pure evil, and an outright Violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
If the United States had the cojones to join the International Criminal Court they would be held accountable for these daily war Crimes
always interesting to here Rupert Murdoch's two cents, or is it Sarah Palin
Thanks for the compliment, Sean Penn is a great actor
Positive stories? There are no positive stories coming out of Afghanistan. Nothing good has happened in that country since the 1970s. Do you want us to make things up to make you feel better? Fine. "Everything is great in Afghanistan. Women aren't getting acid tossed in their faces by Taliban supporters. NATO troops never accidentally hit civilians. NATO troops and Taliban forces sit down together and play Chinese checkers for no apparent reason. There is no violence. Nothing to see here, move along. Move along."
cf. Fox News if you'd like to only hear reports of the "glorious victories" of the "good guys". It's important that stories such as these emerge, since there's little effort in the major media to uncover them. Certainly there are more "positive" reports coming out of Afghanistan, but to ignore the numerous darker issues is know-nothingness. --Wolfcm (talk) 18:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm glad I work up the hornet nest for asking for both side of the reporting and thinking asking for a positive stories for once from this "news" site is a bad thing. You guys can go back to reporting like MSNBC.
KDP3: I don't think our coverage is unbalanced, but if you think that it is there is a simple solution: write some positive coverage about NATO's efforts in Afghanistan. This isn't Fox, MSNBC, or CNN. When they write a "bad" story (bad is a matter of opinion, hence the scare quotes) the only thing any of us can do is rant and complain in the comments section. The great thing about Wikinews is that YOU can help right any perceived wrongs in our coverage:).
So please, take us to task for our poor coverage by writing the type of story that you wish to see on the front page. It usually takes between one and 2 and a half hours to write a short to medium length article, source it, and format it properly for publication. If we've made a mistake, then right our wrongs. Don't take the standard apathetic "meeeeehhh, let someone else do it" approach. That inaction is deadly for any community or society.