War on Terror

Afghan Children Legitimate Targets, Says U.S. Lt. Col., As They Might Have "Hostile Intent"

|

When the war gets to this level–whether or not we believe the Army's assertions that the kids it's killing in Afghanistan deserved it–it's time to rethink whether you are winning hearts and minds, nation rebuilding, or just involved in an endless insane game of blowing shit up and making people so mad they give you what you think is a legitimate excuse to keep blowing shit up.

From the Military Times on exciting new fronts in the war in Afghanistan.

When Marines in Helmand province sized up shadowy figures that appeared to be emplacing an improvised explosive device, it looked like a straightforward mission. They got clearance for an airstrike, a Marine official said, and took out the targets.

It wasn't that simple, however. Three individuals hit were 12, 10 and 8 years old, leading the International Security Assistance Force in Kabul to say it may have "accidentally killed three innocent Afghan civilians."

But a Marine official here raised questions about whether the children were "innocent." Before calling for the M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System mission in mid-October, Marines observed the children digging a hole in a dirt road in Nawa district, the official said, and the Taliban may have recruited the children to carry out the mission……

The New York Times reported that the dead children's family members said they had been sent to gather dung, which farmers use for fuel. Taliban fighters were laying the bombs near the children, who were mistakenly killed, they said.

Regardless, it's one of many times the children have been involved in the war. In a case this year, Afghan National Police in Kandahar province's Zharay district found two boys, ages 9 and 11, with a male 18-year-old carrying 1-liter soda bottles full of enough potassium chlorate to kill coalition forces on a foot patrol.

"It kind of opens our aperture," said Army Lt. Col. Marion "Ced" Carrington, whose unit, 1st Battalion, 508th Parachute Infantry Regiment, was assisting the Afghan police. "In addition to looking for military-age males, it's looking for children with potential hostile intent."

$200 billion spent on this in just fiscal 2012 and 2013, so we can now, halfway across the globe, "look…for children with potential hostile intent," and if we find them, kill them.

Hat tip: Robert Dreyfus at The Nation.

I've been a defeatist on Afghanistan for a decade now!

NEXT: Calif. Oyster Farm Sues US to Stay in Business

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. So when do we classify combatants as males above the age of 13?

    1. Once we’ve made sure they’re all angry at us, which means we’ll need to keep droning for awhile.

    2. When we give 13-year olds the right to vote. We already let mental 12-year olds vote anyway.

      1. Actually, with the current penchant for charging youths as adults this kinda makes sense. In a world where you charge 12 year old kids as adults in murder cases, why is targeting foreign kids with “hostile intent” at all surprising.

  2. At this point we are actively trying to kill their children and the so called security forces we are training kill our soldiers at every opportunity, so how is this not a complete failure?

    1. how is this not a complete failure?

      Um, neither side is using chem/bio weapons yet, as far as we know?

    2. If it has gotten to the point where they are actually using children, there is no more opportunity (if there ever was one) to win the “hearts and minds” battle. We either need to get out of there completely, or carpet bomb the whole country.

      Option 1 above should be taken.

      1. But you fail to address the question of: Why are we there to begin with?! They had nothing to do with 9-11. http://www.muslims4liberty.org…..-for-9-11/

  3. In WWII, the Japanese war cabinet declared that the entire population was dedicated to repelling the Allied invasion. Exactly how many civilians bought into that is impossible to know, but the declaration alone meant that there was no way to visually separate combatants from non-combatants; any invasion would have meant millions of ‘civilian’ casualties. It would have been (and was) very difficult to work up a lot of sympathy for ‘civilian’ losses.
    So, what’s the difference? Why, very simple: Did the Afghans bomb Pearl Harbor without warning? Did they rape Nanking? Invade the Philippines?
    Nope. The US invaded Afghanistan. Which might explain things.

    1. Er, that whole 9/11 thing, which had the support of the Taliban

      1. And the two boys mentioned in the linked article weren’t even born then.

        1. So long as we’re over there, people who are caught committing military acts against our forces are totally legitimate targets. We shouldn’t be over there, but that’s a separate question.

          1. As long as you’re there your forces are totally legitimate targets.

            1. Yep. I never said otherwise. In war, legitimate targets are allowed to fight back.

          2. “So long as we’re over there, people who are caught committing military acts against our forces are totally legitimate targets. We shouldn’t be over there, but that’s a separate question.”

            So. A job that’s not worth doing, is worth doing … how does that go?

      2. Which didn’t have anything to do with Afghanistan. We only went there for Osama, and he’s been gone for some time now.

        1. The Taliban had nothing to do with Afghanistan?

          The initial invasion was justified, though I’d agree whatever we’ve been doing there for the past 9-10 years not so much. If we were just going to pack up and let a chastised Taliban return we could have done that in 2003.

          1. I was talking about 9/11.

            1. ^Retarded^

              1. Yes, you are.

  4. Child soldiers… they can actually kill people.

    1. Lyle| 12.4.12 @ 9:05PM |#
      “Child soldiers… they can actually kill people.”

      Yes, they can. And that’s just one more reason you don’t go out of your way to piss people off.

      1. You mean like al Qaeda going out of its way on 9/11?

        Oops… now were killing their children or their friends’ children.

        1. Except 9/11 didn’t have anything to do with Afghanistan or the Taliban. You’re outright lying, and expect us to believe it?

          1. ^RETARD^

            1. Nice one. Did you mom think that up for you?

        2. Everyone in Afghanistan is a friend of al Qaeda?

          1. Everyone in Afghanistan is a friend of al Qaeda?

            We’re working on it.

    2. Kids collecting shit for fuel are not child soldiers.

      1. But kids planting IEDs are. As far as I can tell, the article never establishes whether they were actually planting IEDs or not. I can therefor draw no conclusion about the actions of the Marines.

        The mistake in Afghanistan was the decision to go after the Taliban once al Qaeda had been eradicated. Nation building NEVER goes well, especially on a population that hasn’t been soundly defeated.

        1. Japan and Germany seem to have turned out okay – of course, that speaks to your exception at the end there.

          1. Yes, exactly. They where whooped and just wanted the war to be over. The unexpected consequences of precision munitions and going out of our way to limit civilian casualties. If it isn’t truly miserable for them, they don’t really care how long it lasts.

            Not that I condone killing innocent civilians. Just an observation (and something that should be taken into consideration when considering sticking around to nation build).

            1. I agree with the notion – we’ve made war so precise the civilians have stopped caring.

              On the other hand, the next time civilian suffering ends a war in Afghanistan will be the first.

              I have no idea what we are trying to accomplish there.

              1. I have no idea what we are trying to accomplish there.

                They (not “we”) appear to be running a particularly malign welfare program, primarily for Southerners, involving turning young men into virtual sociopaths and sending them elsewhere to blow shit up.

                1. It’s not just southerners.

                  I recently met a guy who was in special forces from a western state. We was enlisted 8 years and for 6 he was deployed in some horrible place doing horrible things.

                  He was lamenting the lack of contractor jobs he could find. I had mentioned that insurance companies were always hiring guys for maritime security near Somalia.

                  His response: “All I want is a job where I can kill people again.”

                  1. “I recently met a guy who was in special forces from a western state. We was enlisted 8 years and for 6 he was deployed in some horrible place doing horrible things.”

                    If this was someone you recently met, he sounds like he’s a) full of shit about being deployed 6 times and did “horrible things” and b) never really got to experience extended combat.

        2. If you can draw no conclusion about the killing of children who may or may not have been doing something wrong, then you are mentally ill.

    3. Yeah… my heart aches for the soldier put in a position to kill a child or be killed by him, but one wonders what sort of person it takes to sit in an office and fire a missile at a child from a UAV.

      Also, calling in an airstrike on a group you think is planting a bomb? WTF? What the hell happened to the Marines?

      1. Impossible from the story to know the exact situation. Obviously they are monitoring the convoy routes between bases and looking for people planting mines.

        If they were a long distance from a base or patrol, artillery makes sense – blow away the saboteurs and their mines with one shot.

      2. What the hell happened to the Marines?

        OFFICER SAFETY!

        1. I was a Marine in the first Gulf War. Contrary to whatever propaganda you’ve seen, we don’t all have death wishes. A single arty shot alleviates the need for a firefight and a possibly dangerous bomb disposal? Sounds good to me.

          1. I’m not calling the Marines cowards, but killing kids who aren’t actually pointing a weapon at you comes pretty fucking close.

            So, let me get this straight: they know where the Taliban is placing the IED and could then go and disarm or detonate it shortly after. They know there could be non-combatants in the area.

            So, yeah, let’s bomb it. What could possibly go wrong?

            1. The article seemed to indicate that they realized that the dead saboteurs were children AFTER the arty strike. I wasn’t there and I’m not sure.

              I’m sure the request for fire didn’t include “3 little kids in the open – fire for effect”.

              1. I’m sure the request for fire didn’t include “3 little kids in the open – fire for effect”.

                According to the text above, they weren’t anything except kids gathering dung.

                They really didn’t give a fuck if any kids were in the area; tough shit if they are. I think if they did care, a different action would have been taken.

                1. According to the text above, they weren’t anything except kids gathering dung.

                  That’s what the family supposedly says, but they could easily be lying to cover up and score a propaganda victory.

                  1. Or, you know, being completely truthful and grieving over their loss of their children, but that’s just nuts.

                    You’re such a fucking tool.

                    1. Yes, that’s possible too. A reasonable treatment of the story would consider both possibilities.

                    2. Judging from what I heard in the YouTube, “Collateral Murder” (what the Feds got all in a tizzy and tortured Bradley Manning over) I would be somewhat surprised if the attacking US soldiers did NOT know that there were children present.

                      JW, I’ll do it for you. The Marines, the Army, the Air Force, the Navy, all fucking MORAL cowards.

      3. You can’t tell they’re kids from the (shitty) video on UAVs. When I was there a year ago some helicopters rocketed a pair of lookouts who ran when the helicopter interrupted them laying the IED. It turned out they were a pair of boys ages 8 and 12 or so. The adults who did the emplacement ran the other way and weren’t engaged.

        And using some airborne weapon system is the only practical way to kill IED emplacers in most terrain. A ground patrol can’t get there fast enough before they fade into the orchards/village/whatever.

        1. Or, you know, we could just get up and leave the fucking country.

          It’s still their country, right?

          1. Sure, but if you’re there and you’ve got a (stupid, pointless) job to do and want to stay alive, you’re going to blow up some hostile kids in the mean time.

            The strategic value of being in the country has nothing to do with the tactical merits of incidents like this.

            1. you’ve got a (stupid, pointless) job to do and want to stay alive, you’re going to blow up some hostile kids in the mean time.

              You just know they’re guilty of something, right?

              1. Placing a bomb, sure.

                1. And there is no possible way of capturing those kids, right?

                  No siree, they could use their Taliban Ninja powers on those heavily armed troops.

                  1. There usually isn’t any way to capture them. Where I was all the roads passed through dense pomegranate orchards. You put the bomb in and then step into the orchards and vanish. There were exceptions, on the unirrigated desert fringes, and where possible we’d follow them back to a house and then raid the house to capture and interrogate the guys to get at the network, which is better than killing foot soldiers.

                    But you can’t always do that, and if you can instead kill a foot soldier with a readily available Hellfire rather than let him live to blow off a US soldier’s leg another day, you kill him. And again, the video on these things are pretty poor. You can’t necessarily tell it’s a kid. One glowing infrared figure looks like another.

                    1. And again, the video on these things are pretty poor. You can’t necessarily tell it’s a kid. One glowing infrared figure looks like another.

                      Therefore, presume the worst and take no precautions to avoid injuries to non-combatants. It’s the sensible thing to do.

                2. Because kids would never dig a hole on their own, for fun.

            2. Well, there is always the police force……they’re always looking for a few good killers.

            3. But they VOLUNTEERED to be there blowing up kids, so it’s not just a stupid, pointless survival thing.

              1. Yeah, that’s what I signed up for. Murdering kids. Eating their corpses and enslaving their women. And the pay! Can’t forget about those huge huge paychecks!…idiot.

              2. But they VOLUNTEERED to be there blowing up kids, so it’s not just a stupid, pointless survival thing.

                FUCK YOU, you fucking cunt. You don’t know the fucking first thing about it. NOBODY volunteers to kill kids, you fucking asshole. They volunteer to protect their country. Their say in the matter ends when they sign on the line. After that, the civilian leadership decides where you go and what your mission is.

                Ignorant fuckstain!

                1. Nothing the troops have done in Afghanistan has done anything to protect the United States.

                  1. Fuck you you ignorant cunt.

                2. “Their say in the matter ends when they sign on the line. After that, the civilian leadership decides where you go and what your mission is.”

                  But… but… but I was just following orders!! That argument didn’t seem to fly too well at Nuremburg. Of course, the winners hold the trials.

                  1. And fuck you too you ignorant cunt.

    4. Child soldiers… they can actually kill people.

      Not if the people they might want to kill are thousands of miles away, back in their home country.

  5. What the fuck is the goddamn mission over there?

    It seems to be to kill guys that try to kill our guys, which is a very stupid mission. Considering that it would be a lot cheaper just to bring our guys home; I don’t think some Afghani dung farmer is going to catch the red eye to North Carolina to kill some army guys.

    1. The mission is to keep defense spending high, “justify” a huge military, and make politicians feel even more powerful as they meddle with people outside of their supposed control.

      That’s the mission. Welcome to empire without the perks.

    2. Nobody has been able to define our mission for nearly a decade.

      1. Read Zbiginew Brzezinski’s “The Grand Chessboard.” The decision to invade Afgahnistan was made, at the latest, in the summer of 2001. The ‘Stans have been on borrowed time for 30 years.

    3. Like the drug war: “there’s too much money involved.”

      It’s the neo-con-progressives’ warfare, welfare and jobs program. Bloody iterventionism takes their breath away and gives them excitement.

      Who gives a fuck about the mission.

  6. Explain away this fucking shit, John and Cytotoxic.

    I swear, our government can be pure evil. I hate them more every single day of my life.

    1. Can be?

      1. Sometimes that evil is diluted.

    2. came to make the same request

    3. Something’s wrong. This thread is only 40% as bloodthirsty as usual.

    4. Sloopy, John would cite international law. Whatever the fuck that is.

    5. Nothing to explain. Kids plant bomb, get killed. It’s hilarious that *this* is what you’re down to. You’re down to saying ‘America actions are bad because some bomb-planting kids got killed’. This is how bankrupt you are.

      1. Straw man. No evidence that kids were planting bombs.

  7. Children make the best soldiers

    1. They’re small so most of the bullets just whizz right over their little heads.

      1. Ya just don’t lead em as much.

    2. I didn’t know Joseph Kony commented here

      1. Funny you should say that. Try clicking on General Butt Naked’s name… if you dare.

        1. I was a warlording, child soldier commanding, murderous thug before it was cool, and I did it nekkid.

          Kony’s a big old poseur.

          1. OBAMA/KONY ?2012. Who will kill more Africans in 2012? The American Warlord or the African Warlord?

            1. Kony’s a American citizen?

  8. I have an idea. Leave. And leave a message that we’ll come back and blow shit up if they ever let terrorists operate in their territory who plan to blow stuff up in the U.S. Seems simple enough and involves less killing and making enemies of people who were perfectly fine not really giving a shit about us.

    1. “Teacher, he’s *making sense* again!”

    2. Pro Libertate| 12.4.12 @ 9:21PM |#
      …”And leave a message that we’ll come back and blow shit up if they ever let terrorists operate in their territory”…

      How about if terrorists “operate” there even if the Afghan ‘national gov’t’ doesn’t want them to?
      Afghan really isn’t a nation-state as understood in the west; it’s an area with sub-areas under control of whoever has the power there. Who do we hold responsible? Who gets blown up?

      1. Look, I’m not a detail guy. I suppose the “government” could let us know about the terrorists and invite us in to blow them up.

        Our entire military strategy should eschew occupations for punitive shit-up-blowing. From nukes down to drones.

        1. Pro Libertate| 12.4.12 @ 9:35PM |#
          “Look, I’m not a detail guy. I suppose the “government” could let us know about the terrorists and invite us in to blow them up.”

          Serious? Dunno…
          Do you think that “government” has any idea what happens in X provence? You think the warlords report to a central agency?

          1. Seriously.

            Henry VII is thinks these guys are taking the whole feudalism thing a step too far.

      2. Good point. A rational foreign policy would be one that relied on intelligence to uncover plots, and when we are attacked, to respond by going after the terrorists responsible, in a mission with limited scope (what we should have done in Afghanistan). You’re never going to get every single person who might ever commit terrorism against the US, and trying to do so as we are is futile, counterproductive, and destroys a lot of innocent lives. Any counter-terrorism strategy that relies on occupation and nation building is idiotic

    3. The reason we stayed is so we could build a nation that wouldn’t tolerate terrorists using their country as an outpost so we wouldn’t need to come back and do it again.

      The sad thing is…for what we’ve spent over the last 10 years, we could have returned 3 or 4 times to kill actual bad guys.

      1. Francisco d Anconia| 12.4.12 @ 10:06PM |#
        “The reason we stayed is so we could build a nation that wouldn’t tolerate terrorists using their country as an outpost so we wouldn’t need to come back and do it again.”

        Problem is, we *couldn’t* build that nation.
        There are real limits to what our government is capable of, and that one was far beyond. Much as there are thugs in the world, there are ‘nations’ which are that in name only and we can’t do a damn thing about it.

        1. Couldn’t agree more. If I had to nation build, I can’t think of a worse candidate than Afghanistan. And using the military to do it is asinine.

          1. Wrong nation.
            Check.
            Wrong agency.
            Check.
            Sorta like Bradley’s comment about a land war with China:
            “The wrong war, at the wrong place, at the wrong time, and with the wrong enemy”
            Not that I trust the politicos or the generals to chose the right ones, but, hey, how dumb do you have to be to see this one is *not* the right one?

  9. So….we have no clear mission, nothing substantial to gain, and we sunken into the moral abyss which is the murdering of children.

    When the ten year olds of a country you are occupying rise up to resist you, its time to get the fuck out.

    May Bush and Obama burn in hell while eternally biting at each others necks and clawing at each others balls.

    1. For fuck’s sake, the ten year olds aren’t “rising up,” their shithead parents are telling them to do it. What ten year old boy isn’t going to think that’s fun if dad and all eight uncles are egging him on? I can’t even blame the parents, kids are in plentiful over supply over there. I’m sure it’s easier with fewer mouths to feed.

      1. Oh, Robert Gibbs, you mean that they should have had better parents, huh?

  10. IN MINDANAO

    We said goodbye to the brown babaye in Naic and Santa Cruz
    And for Mindanao we took our vow in a glass of foaming booze
    We’re camped in the sand of a foreign land
    By the mighty Agus River
    With the brush at your toes and the “skeeters” at your nose
    And a kris, perhaps, in your liver.

    We’ve the dhobee-itch and the hamstring hitch,
    The jimjams and the fever;
    The ping-pong wrist and the bolo fist,
    And a bumpus on the liver.
    We’re going up to Lake Lanao,
    To the town they call Marahui;
    When the road is built and the Moros “kilt,”
    There’ll none of us be sorry.

    We’re blasting stumps and grading bumps;
    Our hands and backs are sore, oh!
    We work all day just dreaming of our pay,
    And damn the husky Moros!
    When you’re pulled from bed with a great big head,
    And a weakness o’er you stealing;
    The sick report is a fine resort
    To cure that tired feeling.

    Damn, damn, damn the Filipinos!
    Crosseyed, kakiak Ladrones,
    Underneath the starry flag
    Civilize ’em with a Krag
    And return us to our own beloved homes.

    1. Who wrote this?

      1. U.S. soldiers during the Philippine-American War. I don’t know if a single author has been identified.

        1. From a family friend in the mid ’50s, the Moros were not trusted. The message could have been Marine jingoism; don’t know.

  11. Imagine that these boys were actually planting bombs. As Suthenboy said above, when a populace hates your occupation so much that their children join in the fight against you, it’s time to think about your mission and your motives.

    1. Long past time, even.

    2. you left out credit for the most sincere, most important and most heartfelt part of my post.

      “May Bush and Obama burn in hell while eternally biting at each others necks and clawing at each others balls.”

    3. As I told Suthenboy above, it doesn’t take much to convince a ten year old boy to think this shit is cool as hell. I was that age when I watched Red Dawn. Wolverines! I sure as fuck didn’t hate Cubans or Russians, but that would have hardly been the point at that age.

  12. My comment on Facebook:
    Vietnam Revisited. I had a friend, former Airborne Ranger and DIA agent, who shot and killed a young Vientnamese boy who he thought was a sapper because he was nearby holding an AK-47. He had recurrent nightmares about this. Our mission in Afghanistan is long over, but the combination of U.S. politicians afraid to be called cowards (the height of irony) and career U.S. military and cannon fodder peons punching their self-congratulatory and so-called patriotic tickets has wasted away hundreds of billions of dollars from our economy and made us more enemies than when all these Israel-serving interventions started. We neutralized Osama Bin Laden and finally killed his ass. Surely THAT is “Mission Accomplished.”

    1. Vietnam made far more sense than Afghanistan at this point.

      1. Damning with faint praise.

      2. Sorry, but like it or not, 9/11 did happen, and it was planned in Afghanistan with the aid of the Taliban.

        You doubt that? Then why was the head of the Northern Alliance assassinated right before 9/11?

        The problem with the war in Afghanistan is we’ve taken a middle ground between an all out war (like with Japan) and simple retaliatory strikes and leaving.

        With no clear plan it just drags on and on and on.

        1. Key phrase there is “at this point”

        2. was planned in Afghanistan with the aid of the Taliban.

          …you say, with no evidence.

          1. There’s very strong evidence for that, and even if there wasn’t, they were harboring the planners. That’s an act of war.

            1. There’s very strong evidence for that,

              That I have somehow never seen or heard of, even when I deliberately search for it. Hmmm.

        3. You doubt that? Then why was the head of the Northern Alliance assassinated right before 9/11?

          Which has WHAT to do with 9/11? And which PROVES the Taliban with 9/11 helped how?

          1. Al Quada is now and always has been a wholly owned subsidiary of Western (NATO) intelligence, created to promote the Anglosphere’s objectives. First created to fight USSR, next active in Chechnya, then as the KLA in the Balkans, then 9/11, creating the pretext for the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, more recently Libya, and now Syria.

            Some more info on US/NATO False Flags: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio

  13. If I were 12 years old and some foreign soldier was in my backyard trying to push my family and my neighbors around, damn right I’d be a combatant.

    OBL is dead. Get the fuck out of Afghanistan already.

    -jcr

    1. OBL is dead

      Thanks to our heroic and benevolent savior, the great Obama, who sacrificed an evening of B-ball and jiving it up with celebrity friends, to jump nekked into the icy waters of the Potomac, swim the Atlantic and cross it without even drawing a single hard breath, walk across Europe into Asia and Afghanistan to finally confront Osama and his 1000 armed to the teeth body guards, slay them all, unarmed, cause guns are bad, Mmkay.

      All of that, and the guy only gets one nobel prize. And then all he asks for after such great self sacrifice is a few measly trillion more in taxes.. errr, I mean revenue,.. We are such selfish ingrates, all of us, we should hide our faces in shame, for we are not worthy of the great one that was sent to save us.

      Get the fuck out of Afghanistan already

      Why do you want the terrorists to win?

    2. OK. But that doesn’t justify tugging the heartstrings with appeals to base emotions in stories about “targeting children”.

      1. It certainly justifies pointing out the horrible consequences, such as getting the general populace to hate us, and killing children, yes.

      2. Tulpa, who would have every pregnant woman in America in chains to prevent abortion and justifies it with heartbreaking stories oabout the wee little babies, is just fine killing kids that might possibly maybe be planting an explosive in a country we shouldn’t be in.

        Compassionate conservatism, everybody.

        1. Tu quoque, ad hominem, and appeal to emotion all wrapped in one. You’re like a casserole of fallacy, SF. (and of course you’re lying about me telling stories of embryos — I’m the first to admit it’s hard to have an emotional connection to something that looks like a blood clot).

          1. More like just mocking you for being a dumbshit.

  14. Can we please not be stupid about this? The willingness of pubescent males to fight is not even remotely a function of the justice of the cause. If the US was willing to recruit ten-year-olds, we could easily field tens of thousands of ten-year-old soldiers to go kill Canadians, and it wouldn’t tell you one damn thing about the morality of Canadians or injustices committed by Canada against the US that the kids were willing to shoot them.

    1. Can we please not be stupid about this?

      LOL

    2. DRM| 12.4.12 @ 10:32PM |#
      “Can we please not be stupid about this?”

      I like that idea. Care to elaborate?

      1. don’t engage another sockpuppet, I’m sure it’s not good for your health.

        1. Hey, I wasn’t sure yet. We’ll see,

    3. The willingness of pubescent males to fight is not even remotely a function of the justice of the cause.

      Doesn’t your insane analogy require the adolescent Afghanis to be coming here and attacking us rather than digging for shit (whether they were or not is wholly immaterial to the morality of the response)?

      1. What’s insane about it?

      2. And what’s immoral about the response, which most certainly IS a matter of whether or not they were placing a bomb to kill US soldiers?

        Look, the war is a complete waste of money and lives, but if we are there and kids are trying to kill me, you better believe I’m going to try to kill them right back. I can’t send the truant officer around to put them in detention.

      3. No. Boys recruited into gangs kill each other daily in Chicago and other shitty American cities. A large number of the Tamil Tigers who fought in the civil war in Sri Lanka were children. Hitler Youth, the Children’s Crusade, etc…

        DRM has a point. Getting a 10-year-old to join (a gang, army, whatever) and do stupid shit is really easy.

        1. When I was 10 years old, I had a whole arsenal of weapons and I would not have hesitated to shoot any commies threatening my turf.

          So why are the commies running our government now? Something terrible has went wrong. I thought that when folks were taking pieces of the Berlin wall as souvenirs and they were playing that Scropians song on MTV, that we had won, and that the commies were defeated. Sigh, where did we go wrong?

        2. Those Hitler Youth kids with Panzerfausts in the Battle of Berlin put much of the SS to shame. Children, and I mean boys 10-16, make the best soldiers.
          They are naturals at it.

    4. “we could easily field tens of thousands of ten-year-old soldiers to go kill Canadians”
      ————

      Vive le resistance!

      1. Stan? You’re La Resistance?

        Perhaps you’re more political than I thought.

    5. 10 year olds would succumb to the “Tim Bits” defense.

  15. Not to worry, our new President ran on the promise that he would succeed where the incumbent failed, and finally end this war. I’m sure he’ll get right on that after the inauguration.

    1. I’m sure he’ll get right on that after the inauguration

      Sorry, he can’t, cause Rethuglicans won’t let him.

      1. Damn rethugs keep our Lord from saving the world, don’t they?
        Why, look at CA! The rethugs are not there anymore but they still keep our saviors from saving us!

        1. Myself, I can’t wait to be saved. Give them everything they want and ask if they want more. 100% tax on the evil rich? Bring it on! Carbon taxes and bans on all drilling? Can’t wait. Free everything for everyone who don’t feel like working? Fuck yeah! Do it now, GOP, you sniveling cowards, and let them fucking own it. If Boehner and the GOP owned one set of balls among all of them, they would do it.

  16. First!

    1. You mean last. Only I just took that prize away.

      1. Ninth from last!

  17. Fuck everyone who has voted for the cunts who started and continue this war.

    This is your fault.

    1. This means that we are having a cunt epidemic in the USA, since there were precious few votes against it.

    2. So voting is bad?
      Or voting for the wrong people is bad?
      I want to know. I want to learn.

      1. So voting is bad?

        Pretty much. No good can come of it.

        But, we digress.

        1. If voting is bad, and no good can come of it, then anarchy is the answer? Or is your non-solution nihilism? That’s the easiest and most common chatroom response.

          1. then anarchy is the answer?

            You go to the head of the class. Gold star, Bob.

          2. If voting were all bad, we wouldn’t have Rand Paul, or Jusin Amash, or Thomas Massie. So not all voting is bad.

            Voting by stupid and politically illiterate people is bad. The unfortunate reality is that a majority of voters today are beyond fucking stupid.

            1. Justin Amash. Fucking beer and no edit features. Fuck, Damn, Shit.

            2. Voting by stupid and politically illiterate people is bad

              Wouldn’t a poll tax or literacy test or Reason.com Registration take care of that?

              1. I vote for all 3

              2. Does reason.com registration make voting forbidden or compulsory?

                I’m so confused.

                Instruct me, comrade.

            3. “Voting by stupid and politically illiterate people is bad. The unfortunate reality is that a majority of voters today are beyond fucking stupid.”

              I’m pretty sure open borders are supposed to fix this.

              1. Strawman alert. Whether borders are open or closed doesn’t change the truth of that statement one bit

                1. Of course it does. Importing 3rd world savages with IQs a standard deviation below the norm makes the country even stupider.

                  1. Importing 3rd world savages with IQs a standard deviation below the norm makes the country even stupider.

                    Yup. Letting in your ancestors was a big mistake.

            4. The unfortunate reality is that aN OVERWHELMING majority of voters today are beyond fucking stupid.

              FIFY

      2. Who voted on me not buying Doritos tonight?
        I’m out of Doritos and someone’s to blame.

        1. This is an outrage. Doritos are a basic human right! Why has the UN not voted on this yet?

          1. The Framers never intended for Spicy Sweet Chili Flavor Doritos to be covered. How could they have foreseen that?

            1. And I thought that Jefferson grew some herb. Must of been that hemp ditchweed shit. So it’s clear that the founders only cared about rope and not Doritos.

              1. They had to have had cracklin back then. Blazin’ Buffalo cracklin.

                1. Cracklin rocks. It’s extra crunchy pig, dude!

      3. Voting is bad. The system is rigged. Your vote would mean nothing. Evil vs Evil.

  18. A police adviser mentions that security forces have to consider threats from children, nothing more or less – actually, nothing new in this war or in the history of wars. (You don’t, as a rule, find news flashes in Military Times.) Doesn’t say anything about killing them on the basis of suspicions of “hostile intent,” which is the implication the author and as far as I can tell all of the commnenters draw.

    1. WTF, our ‘peace officers’ shoot puppies on a daily basis. Do you think that is because they see puppies as a serious threat? It’s all about intimidation and subjugation. Why should our treatment of foreigners, especially those we deem our enemies, be any different from our domestic policies? Sure, you say, cops don’t shoot children, only puppies! It’s just a step away. Trying to run a dangerous lemonade stand without the proper permits? Swat team, and some silly kid tries to run for mommy, and the rest is history. And soon, it’s just another boring daily news story.

    2. CK MacLeod| 12.4.12 @ 11:11PM |#
      “A police adviser mentions that security forces have to consider threats from children, nothing more or less – actually, nothing new in this war or in the history of wars….”

      Doesn’t that make you dizzy?

      1. Being able to distinguish between consideration of a threat and confession of intent to kill is supposed to make someone dizzy?

        1. CK MacLeod| 12.4.12 @ 11:43PM |#
          “Being able to distinguish between consideration of a threat and confession of intent to kill is supposed to make someone dizzy?”

          Uh, are you familiar with the English language? I’d be happy to answer a question in English.

          1. Subject:

            Gerund phrase:
            “Being able to distinguish between”

            objects of the preposition “between”:

            1) consideration | of a threat

            2) confession | of intent to kill

            Compound main verb:

            “is supposed”

            Predicate (infinitive phrase):

            “to make someone dizzy”

            If a cop, or an adviser of cops, observes, “Children in this town are being used to attack us,” is that the same thing as saying, “We are now targeting children on suspicion of murderous intent”?

  19. Hey geniuses, if we bring our soldiers home, I seriously doubt ten year old Afghan kids will be able to hurt them

    1. You are not a patriot! You don’t support our troops, and you want the terrorists to win! Traitor!

    2. Now you’ve gone too far with the crazy talk.

    3. They might swim across three oceans to get to the USA carrying IEDs in their backpacks. Preventive action and plenty of killer drones are called for.

  20. Almost last!

  21. Is this The Drunk’s Hour? “When Nothing Matters”(tm)?
    Are drinks two-for-one?
    (hic!)

    1. You could be elected the resident expert on that if you keep posting dis shit.

  22. GUESS WHO’S BACK!

    1. Joe? LoneWacko? Donderooooooooooo?

    2. I heard that it’s Troll Week on NatGeo, so who the fuck knows.

    3. MARYMARY| 12.4.12 @ 11:38PM |#
      ‘GUESS WHO’S BACK!”

      Raging asshole?

      1. winner winner poultry meal!

  23. Guess who’s “MARYMARY”!

      1. Zombie Juan Epstein?

      2. It’s from the party of no! Identify yourself, Rethuglican!

        1. Maybe “MARYMARY” is from the party of Knope.
          It works for NBC.
          Sorta.

            1. YES! Because fuck you, that’s why!

              1. Have you met my kitty, Chairman Meow?

                1. Oh, yeah, sorry about that, I microwaved him and shot him out of a cannon while you were at the foodstamp office.

                  1. Poor Meow Tse Dung, we hardly knew ye.

    1. I just registered and already I have a stalker! I don’t know whether to be honored or very afraid.

  24. On one hand, those kids probably had it coming.

    On the other, gathering dung is a plausible alibi. And that means either the dung is filled with plutonium or this war is pathetic and pointless.

  25. But a Marine official here raised questions about whether the children were “innocent.”

    A WOLF, meeting with a lamb astray from the fold, resolved not to lay violent hands on him, but to find some plea, which should justify to the lamb himself, his right to eat him.

    He then addressed him: “Sirrah, last year you grossly insulted me.”
    “Indeed,” bleated the lamb in a mournful tone of voice: “I was not then born.”

    Then said the wolf: “You feed in my pasture.”
    “No, good sir,” replied the lamb: “I have not yet tasted grass.”

    Again said the wolf: “You drink of my well.”
    “No,” exclaimed the lamb: “I never yet drank water, for as yet my mother’s milk is both food and drink to me.”

    Upon which the wolf seized him and ate him up, saying: “Well! I won’t remain supper-less, even though you refute every one of my imputations.”

    Moral:
    The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny, and it is useless for the innocent to try by reasoning to get justice, when the oppressor intends to be unjust.

    … Or for the bloodthirsty Marine to see the innocence of children

    1. You didn’t build that pasture.

  26. sounds fair. sounds like a typical officer misconduct investigation, handled expeditiously, fairly, and with due process rights in mind.

    http://www.komonews.com/news/l…..06311.html

    Shortly after that incident, a fan with his family inside the stadium complained to security about the officers’ language. The utilities officer described her friends as “Bellevue’s finest,” and sugguested that the fan who complained be careful when driving in Bellevue. The three were asked to leave CenturyLink.

    One of the officers, Andy Hanke, drove home under the influence of alcohol, police learned after an internal investigation. But because he wasn’t stopped and because there was no forensic evidence, it was not clear how intoxicated he was.

    Still police determined he drove while drunk and so iolated the department’s obedience of laws policy.

    Corporal Dion Robertson was demoted from his supervisory role with the bomb squad to an officer’s position. Police said that resulted in a “significant annual loss in pay.”

    Hanke was given 30 days suspension from duty without pay and was removed from the bomb squad, also resulting in what a police spokeswoman as “significant loss in annual wages.”

    Both officers were found to have violated policies for personal conduct and behavior, investigators said. A woman detective who was with the group was cleared of allegations.

    1. “I am convinced that these officers have learned a very hard lesson and their actions in the future will always meet the high standards of behavior that the Bellevue community rightfully demands of their police. The discipline given to these officers is firm yet fair”, said Police Chief Linda Pillo.

      “After the media’s description of the events, some citizens demanded I terminate these officers,” Pillo said. “Once the facts were uncovered through a comprehensive administrative investigation conducted by the Office of Professional Standards regarding the off-duty alleged conduct, it was clear their actions, although embarrassing and disheartening, did not rise to the level of termination.”

  27. Afghans have been engaged in the nefarious trade of poppy cultiviation. Therefore, it is our righteous duty to save the childins from this evil, by killing them.

    1. Barack Obama: “They are guilty of harming the United States of America and must be punished. I’m just the fellow to do that.”

      1. Too bad for them those young men don’t look more like the son he could have had.

  28. Last?
    Come on, give me this!

  29. All that Lt. Col. is saying is that his guys now have to worry that kids may be used to do ACF dirty work, so they have more to worry about. That’s all. He’s not saying that we are now going to target children. Run articles of this type by recent combat veterans before you hit ‘Send’, Reason.

    1. Run articles of this type by recent combat veterans before you hit ‘Send’, Reason.

      Or anyone with half a brain and a modicum of intellectual honesty. I have zero combat experience, and am very much anti-war, but it was obvious to me that’s what he meant.

      In recent times, when Reason has an axe to grind they don’t let the truth get in the way of a good story. Sad.

      1. I would like to see a journalist with military experience on staff. Someone the others could go to for clarification before jumping to conclusions and running stories like this one.

        Doherty is not a libertarian wrt military matters, he’s a straight up pacifist. He truly doesn’t understand the relationship between the military and civilian leadership and apparently cannot distinguish between directed policy and military necessity.

        1. By “military” you must mean “mass murdering sociopathic robots” ?

          1. Fuck you cunt!

      2. This is one of the most honest news sources on the planet. Honest, tell me where you find better or more unbiased?

        1. Al Jazeera?
          Russia Today?
          Haaretz?

          1. The Onion?

            1. Granma!

              1. PRAVDA USA, aka MSNBC.

                1. Neues Deutschland

        2. On my blog.

    2. When I was a young libertarian, I naively believed that since our system is one of rational, consistent principles (mostly, anyway), its proponents would engage in rational, consistent, truthful arguments without resorting to distortion and ad-hominem.

      Unfortunately, folks like Doherty have worked hard to disabuse me of that notion. This is hardly the first time he’s done something like this, either. On the whole I’ve just had to accept that while libertarianism as a belief system is better than conservatism and vastly, enormously better than liberalism, some of its proponents are just as likely to twist the truth, sling BS, beat up strawmen, etc. as anyone in the mainstream ideologies.

    3. Actually, notice the “hat tip” to Robert Dreyfuss at The Nation. Doherty is basically just accepting Dreyfuss’ warping of the story and repeating it. This is the Richard Dreyfuss who maintains that the rise of radical Islam is (of course!) the fault of the US. Nevermind that the Muslim Brotherhood formed in 1928, that Khomeini was preaching against secularism in the 1940s, Sayyid Qutb was writing Islamist tracts in that decade as well, the Jamaat-i-Islami was founded in 1941, and scads of other major figures and groups sprouted up well before the US had major interests in the Islamic world.

      Say, does this mean we’ll be seeing an article here at Reason about how Richard Dreyfuss is a libertarian icon, up there with Gore Vidal and George McGovern (and then soon followed by Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn)? He thinks poorly of US foreign policy, and that’s all the qualification anyone seems to need.

      1. Dude, all you’ve GOT here is ad-hominem.

        1. In the first part, I’m noting Dreyfuss’ propensity to skew events, and pointing out that Doherty is just relaying the guy’s opinions without (so far as I can see) adding any original input of his own. In the second part, I’m noting that Dreyfuss fits just fine with the tendency of Reason staff over the last few years to lionize folks who have little in common with libertarianism as a whole but who agree with the non-interventionist subset.

          Ad-hominem would be “why should we listen to someone like Brian Doherty who likes punk rock?”

  30. Watch Cali. The progressives have a supermajority across the board, and governor Moonbat as supreme leader. Let them show they way. This is going to get very entertaining to say the least.

  31. Taliban routinely recruit boys to carry ammo for them, and locals even send their kids into Paki to buy it and sell it to the “foreigners”, aka the Taliban idiots who shoot at US troops. See Junger’s “War” and Bing West’s book (forget the name) – they talk about this constantly.

    Just another reason that parts of Afghanistan just ain’t worth it – wall them off and let the rest of the country live in peace, hopefully without any US troops in it.

  32. Remember when My Lai was a national disgrace? Ah, but we were a simple folk back then.

  33. lol, you have got to be kidding me dude. Seriously?

    http://www.Hidden-Anon.tk

  34. Then one day I heard “Reach for it, mister.” I spun around, and there I was face to face with a six year old kid. Well, I just threw my guns down and walked away. Little bastard shot me in the ass. So I limped to the nearest saloon, crawled inside a whiskey bottle, and I’ve been there ever since.

  35. Another pathetic attempt by Doherty to lay moral blame for the Taliban’s actions on America. They’re children so what? Just another victory for superior America.

    1. It’s times like this that I’m reminded what an evil person you are.

  36. In three more years, Malia Obama will be old enough to join the military. Then she can carry out her father’s agenda personally and blow kids up and then come back with PTSD, a missing limb, then get arrested under her father’s continued drug war when she uses medical marijuana to help her deal with PTSD.

  37. Hey, under the laws of war, kids are legitimate targets if they’re engaged in military action.

    I don’t think it’s all that good for America’s global image or overall goals, however, to be acting in the same role as the Cubans/North Koreans in the movie Red Dawn.

    Legally justified is not the same thing as morally justified.

  38. it is very nice of it .

  39. If the Taliban are not responsible for 9-11, then why are we still fighting them? http://www.muslims4liberty.org…..-for-9-11/

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.