Taliban using human shields

[ck4829]

Taliban fighters holding out in Marjah are increasingly using civilians as human shields, firing from compounds where U.S. and Afghan forces can clearly see women and children on rooftops or in windows, Afghan and U.S. troops said Wednesday.

The intermingling of fighters and civilians also has been witnessed by Associated Press journalists. It is part of a Taliban effort to exploit strict NATO rules against endangering innocent lives to impede the allied advance through the town in Helmand province, 610 kilometers (360 miles) southwest of Kabul.

Journalists embedded with the Marines have seen such cases: a neighborhood is alive with children, then the next minute the streets are empty and gunshots ring out. As the troops advance, children reappear, peering and grinning through half-closed doors.

Rocket-propelled grenades have been fired from behind groups of civilians, who scamper away as the Marines point their weapons toward the source of fire. Marines have come under fire in poppy fields as they are being tended by farmers.

"I myself saw lots of people that were shot, and they were ordinary people," said Afghan soldier Esmatullah, who did not give his rank and like many Afghans goes by one name. Taliban "were firing at us from people's homes. So in returning fire, people got shot," he said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100217/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan

These are despicable tactics, but firing back would not solve anything.

[FiveGoodMen]

1. Kill them all and let god sort them out

That's the point of the post, right?

[ck4829]

2. "These are despicable tactics, but firing back would not solve anything."

[FiveGoodMen]

15. Sorry. Lack of careful reading.

What I should have said was that the article being quoted seems to be pushing for that result.

[ddeclue]

3. That's OK.. they'll get to meet up with the business end of a Barrett M107 in the hands of

some of the world's best snipers who'll demonstrate just how stupid it is to hide behind women and children to them.

[11 Bravo]

6. Yup, give 'em an inch, and they'll take a fist-sized piece out of the back of your skull.

[Oregone]

8. GO USA!!!! WERE NUMBER 1! BADASS!

[MattBaggins]

9. You're watching too many Schwarzenegger movies.

[Flaneur]

11. The DU Macho Man Brigade makes an appearance.

Ooh, I wanna fondle that baby, wrap my fingers around its barrel...

[Mari333]

4. and if we werent there they wouldnt be doing that

but the war profiteers dont care, this is what its all about


corporate profit.

[Don Caballero]

5. These people are ruthless killers

So glad our President has shifted the focus to Af/Pak in the War on Terror. The Shrub really fucked up this war.

[Oregone]

7. "but firing back would not solve anything"

Anything is worth trying once

(unless it involves hogs and baby oil)

[virgogal]

10. How heroic,how brave,how manly.

[gratuitous]

12. On both sides

But when you're in a shooting match with overwhelming forces, against armaments the like of which soldiery has never seen, fighting foreign invaders of your country, invaders who capture, hold and torture prisoners on any pretext or no pretext at all, I suppose just about any tactic seems like fair game.

[pbrower2a]

13. Take photos

The use of innocent, unwilling people as human shields is itself a war crime.

I despise the death penalty, but I can think of one fit application here. Use a human shield, and die the coward's death (hanging).

Better yet -- shoot the hostage-taker. Cops do so when necessary in hostage situations.

[bigtree]

17. what's the penalty you would proscribe for abuses on our side? After all, WE'RE the invaders

. . . what about NATO forces targeting civilian areas, knowingly firing into areas where they know civilians are taking refuge from their assault on their village?

[G_j]

14. duh!

as if they expected differently...

[bigtree]

16. what did they figure would happen invading a village of civilians?

. . . driving them off of THEIR land?

[rug]

18. They underestimate the depravity of the Pentagon.