Deliberately Targeting Children? Nah, How'd We Know There'd be Kids?

[Michael Tee]

from the Juan Cole website today

<<Or also from McClatchy, there is this item: "Around 10.30 am , an American helicopter opened fire on a primary school at Al-Nida ( 9 km north west of Mendli ) killing 7 pupils and injuring 3 other pupils with huge damage to the school building . Eyewitnesses confirmed this report while the American side said that they opened fire on the building after being fired from it."

<<It could be a mistake. Or, it is entirely possible that a guerrilla positioned himself in the building and fired on the Americans from it, knowing that they would return fire and kill some little children. Sunni Arab guerrillas have been playing that game with US troops for several years, shooting at them from civilian crowds, e.g. If the guerrillas regularly do that, it makes it more likely that the US will make a mistake even when not actually fired on.>>

[Plane]

Americans are wearing armor made from aramid fibers , carbon fibers , ceramic plates , aluminum and steel.

Islamofascists are wearing children?


If they are attempting to reduce the safety of the people generally , then what are they trying to protect?

Oil , ..power , ......Allah?

[Michael Tee]

"I used to be disgusted, now I'm just amused"  [T-Shirt slogan]

An American helicopter knowingly and deliberately fires at an elementary school during school hours and kills seven kids.

Who's to blame for this?  The Americans in the helicopter?  Perish the thought!  The Taliban are to blame for this.  They "wear" children as defensive armour.  So says plane.

The helicopter pilots and gunners of course had no choice.  They could not simply have flown away from the gunman on the school roof.  How could they help but fire on the school and on the children inside?  It's not as if they had free will or exercised moral choices.

When I posted this article, I did not dream for a minute that anyone would actually defend this act.  I posted it basically in response to sirs' ridiculous claims that U.S. forces did not "target" women and children - - that every one of those hundreds of thousands of casualties, that mountain of tiny corpses killed by American fire, was a "tragic accident," that - - unlike the "barbaric" enemy - - the U.S. could not and would not, ever, "target" innocent little girls, to use sirs' words.

Well, guess what folks - - regardless of how good or how bad the Taliban are, the Americans DO target innocent little girls, and innocent little boys too, we don't wanna accuse them of being sexist, any child of either sex will do just fine for these barbarians.

I'm not usually one for Biblical quotations, but two come irresistibly to mind at the present time, both as it happens from the New Testament, not as accurately as I'd like them to be but the best I can do from memory: 1.  Woe unto ye who call good evil and evil good (that was for plane)  and 2. [for those who target children] better for you that a millstone were tied around your neck and you were cast into the depths of the sea.

[Plane]

"I used to be disgusted, now I'm just amused"  [T-Shirt slogan]

An American helicopter knowingly and deliberately fires at an elementary school during school hours and kills seven kids.

Who's to blame for this?  The Americans in the helicopter?  Perish the thought!  The Taliban are to blame for this.  They "wear" children as defensive armour.  So says plane.

The helicopter pilots and gunners of course had no choice.  They could not simply have flown away from the gunman on the school roof.  How could they help but fire on the school and on the children inside?  It's not as if they had free will or exercised moral choices.

When I posted this article, I did not dream for a minute that anyone would actually defend this act.  I posted it basically in response to sirs' ridiculous claims that U.S. forces did not "target" women and children - - that every one of those hundreds of thousands of casualties, that mountain of tiny corpses killed by American fire, was a "tragic accident," that - - unlike the "barbaric" enemy - - the U.S. could not and would not, ever, "target" innocent little girls, to use sirs' words.

Well, guess what folks - - regardless of how good or how bad the Taliban are, the Americans DO target innocent little girls, and innocent little boys too, we don't wanna accuse them of being sexist, any child of either sex will do just fine for these barbarians.

I'm not usually one for Biblical quotations, but two come irresistibly to mind at the present time, both as it happens from the New Testament, not as accurately as I'd like them to be but the best I can do from memory: 1.  Woe unto ye who call good evil and evil good (that was for plane)  and 2. [for those who target children] better for you that a millstone were tied around your neck and you were cast into the depths of the sea.

There is no question that the gunner who shot at a helicopter knew he was on the roof of a school , so he was certainly targeting Children.

Is it impossible that the helicopter pilot did not know that the building was a school?

Could you provide a link to further information  re. this incident?

[sirs]

An American helicopter knowingly and deliberately fires at an elementary school during school hours and kills seven kids.  When I posted this article, I did not dream for a minute that anyone would actually defend this act.  I posted it basically in response to sirs' ridiculous claims that U.S. forces did not "target" women and children

Perhaps Tee can demonstrate for us the fact that the helicopter KNEW it was a school they were firing at in response to being fired upon, and how the children were his intended targets in order to validate this asanine notion that they were "deliberately targeting chilkdren".  We shall all wait patiently for Tee to present that evidence, vs his simple U.S. military are just a bunch of raping murderering thugs say so

[Michael Tee]

<<Is it impossible that the helicopter pilot did not know that the building was a school?>>

Yeah, that makes sense.  The U.S. has only been there for how many years?  And so how would their maps of the area show which buildings were schools or hospitals?  Where did they think the schools were?  Underground?  And if they didn't know who was in the building, why fire at it at all, when the option was to pull back out of range till they could figure things out?

I figure, if anyone brought me a map of my area, I could point out in a few seconds where the schools are. This is not rocket science.  You don't need the best map-makers in the country.   But maybe the Americans were too busy to worry about trivia like that.  In all the years they've been there, who had the time to undertake the Herculean labour of showing the schools on the local maps?  The great task of course is to bring "democracy" to these people, not to mark all the schools on maps issued to helicopter gunship pilots.  Yeah, this must have been just one more 'tragic error" in a long history of "tragic errors."

[sirs]

So, in other words, no evidence, just your say so that helicopter knew it was a school and actually intended to kill children.  gotcha


 

[Michael Tee]

<<There is no question that the gunner who shot at a helicopter knew he was on the roof of a school , so he was certainly targeting Children.>>

How is there no question?  What if he were one of those al-Qaeda imports you're so worried about, fresh off the bus from Afghanistan?  How would the poor bugger even know what a school looks like?

Besides, if he shot at the helicopter, I'd say he targeted the helicopter and its occupants, unless he's the worst fucking marksman on the planet.  If the guys in the helicopter shot at the school, they targeted the school and its occupants.

That's how it works, plane.  That's what "targeting" means.

[Michael Tee]

<<So, in other words, no evidence, just your say so that helicopter knew it was a school and actually intended to kill children.  gotcha>>

Well, that's one possible explanation and probably by far the likeliest, but there are others as well.  Like the American military are such fucking idiots that in four years they haven't figured out where the elementary schools are.  Or they're so monstrously indifferent to the loss of innocent civilian life, kids included, that they know where the schools are but don't bother to map them for their helicopter gunship pilots.

Your choice, sirs.  Which one do you think it is?

[sirs]

My choice would be that your say so seems to be heading the list.  Get back to us when you actually have reported evidence that the helipcopter, in response to being shot at, knew they were shooting at a school, and of course, had every intention of killing children. That is what your thread is specifically implying

[Michael Tee]

Well, of course, I was specifically implying what I felt was far the likeliest explanation - - that the U.S. military, not being a bunch of fucking idiots, had in fact ascertained the location of all schools in the area, put it on maps, given maps to the helicopter pilots - - who then attacked the school not giving a shit how many kids they'd kill or wound.  I mean, that is the least surprising of all scenarios.

But I gave you the other rational possibilities to mull over, sirs - - I wouldn't want to force you into accepting my position.  Was the U.S. so fucking stupid that in four years they failed to ascertain or map the location of elementary schools in the area?  Were the pilots so fucking stupid as to fly without maps and their commanders so fucking stupid as to allow it?  Or were they so fucking callous that they knew where all the schools  in the area were and just didn't bother to put it on the pilots' maps?

Seems like I exhausted all the possibilities here, sirs - - and told you which one I believe in.  Which one do you believe in?

[sirs]

Seems like I exhausted all the possibilities here, sirs - - and told you which one I believe in.  Which one do you believe in?

Actually, there'd be at least one more plausible scenario, that doesn't include the dripping in hatred of our military.  So, until I see/read evidence to the contrary, I'm going to be giving the benefit of the doubt to the pilot of a U.S. Helicopter that came under attack, and upon confirming the location of the attack, targeted that specific location and fired upon it. 

It's also likely the pilot will be too emotionally traumatized to continue flying, after he was informed of the children that were tragically accidentally killed, from his actions.  Just speculation on my part, but just helps further rebutt the asanine notion that the children were deliberately targeted

[Plane]

<<There is no question that the gunner who shot at a helicopter knew he was on the roof of a school , so he was certainly targeting Children.>>

How is there no question?  What if he were one of those al-Qaeda imports you're so worried about, fresh off the bus from Afghanistan?  How would the poor bugger even know what a school looks like?

Besides, if he shot at the helicopter, I'd say he targeted the helicopter and its occupants, unless he's the worst fucking marksman on the planet.  If the guys in the helicopter shot at the school, they targeted the school and its occupants.

That's how it works, plane.  That's what "targeting" means.

I would hate to argue that a member of the Al Quieda might not be an idiot ,so I accept your proposition that this guy climbed to the top of this building wthout realiseing what it was and fired on an helicopter without realiseing that there would be retun fire. Such idiocy precludes the possibibility of planning to cause this incident pretty much as it was.

I get the feeling that you are not familliar with flight very much ,finding a particular building takes some effort , you can't read the street signs from up there. It is very plausable that the pilot had no idea that this particular building was a school.

[Michael Tee]

<<It's also likely the pilot will be too emotionally traumatized to continue flying, after he was informed of the children that were tragically accidentally killed, from his actions.>>

ROTFLMFAO.  That was hilarious.  Thanks, sirs.

Know this Army joke from Viet Nam?

Q.  How can you guys shoot little kids?

A.  Easy.  You don't lead them so much. 

("lead" means you aim in front of a moving target,  so target and round will arrive at the same place at the same time.)

[Michael Tee]

<<I get the feeling that you are not familliar with flight very much ,finding a particular building takes some effort , you can't read the street signs from up there. It is very plausable that the pilot had no idea that this particular building was a school.>>

I get the feeling you are not very familiar with state-of-the-art GPS systems which the helicopter pilots undoubtedly have, and in four years, I would think the Americans, if they were even faintly interested in avoiding shooting up little kids, would have programmed all elementary school locations into their GPS.  Failing that, a simple white-painted visible symbol painted on a roof or nearby structure would be an acceptable low-tech solution for those unwilling or unable to read maps or follow GPS.  Daily patrols could watch for bogus symbols or the eradication of known symbols - - IF there was an interest in avoiding these type of casualties.

So between maps, GPS and marker symbols, I would think there is sufficient opportunity to recognize an elementary school from a helicopter.  When in doubt and the pilot can easily fly out of the range of the ground fire, the self-defence argument is just pure bs.  So is the "poor me, I can't tell an elementary school from an oil refinery" argument.  Schools have a fairly recognizable appearance and if the guy can't tell that a building could be an elementary school, given the maps, GPS and possible marking systems available, he shouldn't be walking the streets unescorted, let alone flying helicopters.