Ten Afghan "civilians" killed in NATO airstrike

Comments (6)

I like how Reuters puts “civilians” in the quotations marks, as though the children killed weren’t really civilians but future terrorist…

By the same token, al-Qaeda should suppose to that American children are future imperialist stormtroopers and kill them mercilessly…

Hey, what’s good for the goose is good for ther gander!

Feb 13, 2013 3:23am EST  --  Report as abuse
Bos-Mike wrote:

Who is writing your news? An ex-Nazi, or an illiterate moron that doesn’t use when quotation marks supposed to be used. Why is ‘civilians’ in quotes? Or is every body in Afghanistan is a legitimate military target and no civilians exist. I wouldn’t like it if the rest of the media put our military as ‘soldiers’

Feb 13, 2013 4:41am EST  --  Report as abuse
McBob08 wrote:

Putting “Civilians” on quotes is more proof of Reuter’s growing Right-Wing Bias. It’s still children, in any event, and NATO has no business killing ANY children.

Feb 13, 2013 5:05am EST  --  Report as abuse
scottabc wrote:

Why is civilians in quotes in the headline? There doesnt seem to be any reason to believe they werent civilians, is Reuters just providing spin for the U.S. government just to be nice?

Feb 13, 2013 5:14am EST  --  Report as abuse
SvenBolin wrote:

“”? I believe we have an all time low!

Feb 13, 2013 6:46am EST  --  Report as abuse
amasiam wrote:

Perhaps “civilians” was meant to emphasize that civilians were killed. That was my impression, though I do think the quotation marks were unnecessary and somewhat disruptive to the text. IOW it looks kinda messy.

Feb 13, 2013 7:32am EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.