4 year old Afghan boy killed by US troops

[karter]

US forces stationed in Afghanistan accidentally gunned down a four-year-old boy, say local officials. The incident prompted a rebuke from President Karzai who is refusing to sign a security pact with the US unless it gives assurances of civilian safety.
Marines based in the violence-plagued province of Helmand mistakenly opened fire on the boy because of poor visibility, said local government authorities.
“As the weather was dusty, the marine forces based there thought he was enemy and opened fire. As a result of mistaken fire, he was killed,” the spokesman for the governor of Helmand Province, Omar Zwak, told Reuters.
In response to the incident, NATO said an investigation into the matter would be launched immediately and that all possible measures were taken to avoid civilian casualties.
The four-year-old’s death at the hands of American troops sparked a furious reaction from the Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who demanded an immediate end to all military operations on civilian homes and show a clear dedication to the peace process before a security pact is signed.
"We have called … for an absolute end to ISAF/NATO military operations on homes and villages in order to avoid such killings where innocent children or civilians are the victims," the president's spokesman, Aimal Faizi, said when commenting on the death of the boy.
Washington and Kabul are currently at loggerheads over a security pact that would see an American troop presence stay behind after the US’s scheduled withdrawal in December. The Obama Administration has been ratcheting up the pressure for Karzai to sign the agreement after the December 31st deadline.
It argues that if the US does not leave behind at least 8,000 troops it could allow the Taliban to regain a foothold and plunge the country into “chaos”.
The Afghan government has rejected these claims as “baseless” and intimated that there is an ulterior motive behind the security pact.
"We strongly reject that as baseless as they have in the past been proved inaccurate," Faizi told Reuters.




http://rt.com/news/us-kill-afghan-boy-416/

[GommeInc]

It looks like a case of the hand acting before the brain has had time to think. Unless the boy clearly looked like he was holding a weapon or approaching NATO/American forces as if to attack them, then they really have no excuse. Even with poor visibility, you need at least some evidence that the individual is a threat before you act on a whim.

[karter]

A 4 year old with a weapon? Of course. You're an Afghani and you instantly become an enemy, a 4 year old terrorist. What's the value of an Afghani/Pakistani/Yemeni life anyway?

[-:Undertaker:-]

A 4 year old with a weapon? Of course. You're an Afghani and you instantly become an enemy, a 4 year old terrorist. What's the value of an Afghani/Pakistani/Yemeni life anyway?

Terorist groups in Iraq and Afghanistan have been known to use young children (either by force or brainwashing) as a way to get at British or American troops. The same with veiled women (really just men dressed up) - the tactic helps create a climate of fear and paranoia among foreign troops and puts them on a higher guard which of course when it goes wrong helps build more support for Islamic groups like al-Qaeda.

Whatever the merits of this case itself though it's clear that this is a completely pointless war and we British ought to pull out immediately. Afghanistan ain't known as the graveyard of Empires for nothing.

[GommeInc]

Terorist groups in Iraq and Afghanistan have been known to use young children (either by force or brainwashing) as a way to get at British or American troops. The same with veiled women (really just men dressed up) - the tactic helps create a climate of fear and paranoia among foreign troops and puts them on a higher guard which of course when it goes wrong helps build more support for Islamic groups like al-Qaeda.

Whatever the merits of this case itself though it's clear that this is a completely pointless war and we British ought to pull out immediately. Afghanistan ain't known as the graveyard of Empires for nothing.
Also, it could just have been a simple mistake where the child could have been considered an adult - visibility was incredibly poor afterall.

It's not going help relations with that area - I hear the Afghan President isn't at all happily, and I can't blame him - it's a difficult time.

[karter]

I just don't understand how a 4 year old could be mistaken as an adult

And even if there was an adult, killing him is justified regardless of the fact that he may or may not be carrying a weapon?

[GommeInc]

I just don't understand how a 4 year old could be mistaken as an adult

And even if there was an adult, killing him is justified regardless of the fact that he may or may not be carrying a weapon?
Basically what Undertaker said - the base is aware of child soldiers and the chances are the child was dangerously close to the base. Plus they're on high alert because of the slow departure of troops in that area which increases the chance of attack.

It's not justifying what happened, the solider still killed an innocent person and more so a child - it's just you have to analyse what may have been the reason.

[karter]

Let's say even if a child has worn a suicide vest, killing a defenseless child will do what exactly?

Read some comments on an American newspaper website. I love the 'it's a god damn warzone' explanation because by that the military feels free to commit atrocities and be called 'heroes' while killing of women and children is okay since there have been events where they were forced (or "brainwashed" as people like to call that). The military is hardly tried for any of the warcrimes. Not so long ago a soldier killed 12 innocent Afghani women and children and the US government was trying to protect him? The army gets away everytime because apparently they're not the 'enemies'

This 'war' on terror is just embarrassing and has solved 0 problems and is further complicating situations which are not good for anyone.

[GommeInc]

Let's say even if a child has worn a suicide vest, killing a defenseless child will do what exactly?

Read some comments on an American newspaper website. I love the 'it's a god damn warzone' explanation because by that the military feels free to commit atrocities and be called 'heroes' while killing of women and children is okay since there have been events where they were forced (or "brainwashed" as people like to call that). The military is hardly tried for any of the warcrimes. Not so long ago a soldier killed 12 innocent Afghani women and children and the US government was trying to protect him? The army gets away everytime because apparently they're not the 'enemies'

This 'war' on terror is just embarrassing and has solved 0 problems and is further complicating situations which are not good for anyone.
A child wearing a suicide vest is not by definition defenceless as they have become a weapon. If killing them stops more than one person being killed or lots of damage then it's a job that must be done, no matter how morally degrading it is - you have to remove yourself from sentiment in this situation, unless you can disarm a suicide vest just by staring at it?

Completely agree with the rest though, the war on terror if anything has increased anxiety, the power of terror and created more unrest, with groups who weren't involved in terrorist organisation getting involved because an injustice has been made by poor planning from the West who went in guns blazing without really gaining intelligence from the locals. Many feel safer with our forces there, but some feel it's increasing the risk of damage while the battle goes on. The people who live nearby to these bases are after all sitting inside the war zone, which is not a great place to be in.