It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Communication_Monster
So what you are saying is it's alright to bomb the # out of these civilians just because some fleeing Taliban took refuge in and around their homes? Killing little girls, mothers, brothers, and fathers... People who are probably absolutely nothing to do with this pigging War should be bombed to death by the Coalition just to 'teach the Taliban a lesson'? I'm absolutely speechless at how sinister that statement is, the insane thing is, you were actually being serious! I guess next you will be saying it's ok for suicide bombers to kill us just to get at some of our troops. What the hell, they're only killing the enemy wherever they find them, right? No harm done. Of course, any Civilians who died would be blood on the hands of the Coalition, who were obviously using them as 'Human shields'. Indeed.
Originally posted by deltaboy
No its not all right to kill civilians, theres a difference between killing the enemy and killing civilians,
Originally posted by deltaboy
Its unrealistic to say you can fight a war where civilians are never hurt, on a planet filled with over 6 billion people and the fighting thats global.
Originally posted by deltaboy
Not to mention why we call it collateral damage where terrorists call it Allah's will.
Originally posted by deltaboy
I love to see the civilians out of the way, but thats just unrealistic, I understand your view that innocents should never die, but fighting an enemy that hides among the population, you got yourself a problem, a moral problem.
Originally posted by skippytjc
The west causes civilian deaths via unfortunate accidents and the terrorists cause civilian deaths as a purposeful tactic.
Originally posted by skippytjc
The west causes civilian deaths via unfortunate accidents and the terrorists cause civilian deaths as a purposeful tactic.
Originally posted by zerotolerance
I guess that makes us the lesser of 2 evils.
And this shows their general lack of respect for life.
Very distrubing....
Originally posted by Communication_Monster
Of course it's unrealistic, but you could certainly reduces the odds by not dropping bombs directly on their homes, whether insurgents have ran in them or not. Make sense to you?
Ahh right, so we can just slap a collateral damage label on this and everything is fine, right? Tell that to the kid with the invisible family.
Kid, they're not hiding amongst the population, they are the population! Whose country do you think we're in? What you said earlier was disgracefull, and I hope you get torn apart on here for it.
Originally posted by deltaboy
Originally posted by Communication_Monster
Of course it's unrealistic, but you could certainly reduces the odds by not dropping bombs directly on their homes, whether insurgents have ran in them or not. Make sense to you?
Makes sense to me if you have men on the ground that can do the same job, but instead we have just fighter bombers only that were present to commit this action. Make sense to you?
Originally posted by deltaboy
Ahh right, so we can just slap a collateral damage label on this and everything is fine, right? Tell that to the kid with the invisible family.
Again you just seem to be narrow minded that civlians will never get killed. An innocent losses his or her life or his or her family was blown to bits, that just war.
Originally posted by deltaboy
If you can't except the realities of war then thats just too bad. You should be glad we don't do bombings equivalent to WW2 on Japan's mainland.
Originally posted by deltaboy
Kid, they're not hiding amongst the population, they are the population! Whose country do you think we're in? What you said earlier was disgracefull, and I hope you get torn apart on here for it.
They are the population? You should remember that the Taliban comprises of Afghans as well as Arabs. Where you think the Taliban created from? You be suprised. And the talk of I hope you get torn apart, shows how amateur you are. Old man.
[edit on 23-5-2006 by deltaboy]
www.afghanistan.org...
Are Afghans and Arabs the same? No, people of Afghanistan are Afghans, consisting of many different ethnicities, but we are united as Afghans.
Are all Afghans Muslims? Islam is the dominant religion in Afghanistan, but there are also Sikh, Hindu, Jewish and Christian people living in Afghanistan
Originally posted by Communication_Monster
Do you realise how stupid and confused you sound? Are there no Arabs, or Afghans in Afghanistan?
www.afghanistan.org...
Are Afghans and Arabs the same? No, people of Afghanistan are Afghans, consisting of many different ethnicities, but we are united as Afghans.
Are all Afghans Muslims? Islam is the dominant religion in Afghanistan, but there are also Sikh, Hindu, Jewish and Christian people living in Afghanistan
Haha, who did you call an Amateur?
Do you realise how stupid and confused you sound? Are there no Arabs, or Afghans in Afghanistan?
Originally posted by skippytjc
I don’t hate Muslims, I just hate the ones that want to kill me and my fellow Americans. Which unfortunately by my estimates is quite a few, a lot more than other faiths for certain.
I don’t hate the Muslim Pakistani family that live next door to me, in fact I let them use some of my garden in exchange for some traditional Halal cooking from time to time. I played cricket with their kids yesterday in fact. I like them, and I should also note they haven’t tried to kill me (yet). But if/when they do decide its time to kill me; I will most certainly stop liking them then.
Originally posted by deltaboy
Reread your post as well as my post. You say they as the Taliban hidden among the population are the population. I say that the Taliban is not the population, that the Taliban comprised of of Afghans as well as Arabs and do not serve the Afghan people.
Originally posted by Communication_Monster
Are Afghans and Arabs the same? No, people of Afghanistan are Afghans, consisting of many different ethnicities, but we are united as Afghans.
www.afghanistan.org...
Are all Afghans Muslims? Islam is the dominant religion in Afghanistan, but there are also Sikh, Hindu, Jewish and Christian people living in Afghanistan
Originally posted by deltaboy
Look up on the history of the Taliban.
Originally posted by deltaboy
no where do I say Afghans and Arabs are not in Afghanistan. Unless somehow you don't know how to type a sentence or you don't understand what I am saying.
Originally posted by deltaboy
Its simple...they do not represent the Afghan population because the Taliban was created by Pakistan. You say they are part of the population, how can it be part of the population when the Afghan people did not create this organization, not to mention the Taliban endangering the people of Afghanistan by allying with the Al Qaeda, now what tells you that, that the Taliban you say is part of the population which you mean it represents the Afghan people, allied with Al Qaeda a very well known enemy of the U.S. Did the Taliban do it in the interests of the Afghan people? Or its interest of Al Qaeda which is also comprised of Arabs and Pakistanis. If I remember, Mullah Omar the leader of the Taliban and supposedly the leader of the Afghan people, arranged a marriage with one of his daughters to Osama Bin Laden, in strengthening the alliance. What does that tell you about the Taliban?
Rise to Power
After the fall of the Soviet-backed Democratic Republic of Afghanistan in 1992, Afghanistan was thrown into civil war between competing warlords. The Taliban eventually emerged as a force capable of bringing order to the country. The rise of the Taliban helped the economy by eliminating the payments that warlords demanded from business people; it brought political benefits by reducing factional fighting (although the Taliban fought aggressively against their enemies, their relative hegemony reduced the number of factions) and brought relative stability by imposing a set of norms on a chaotic society.
Previosu Western Links
The Taliban have had negotiations with U.S. and Argentinian petroleum companies. In 1997, a delegation from the Taliban went to Texas for talks about the construction of a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan across Afghanistan to Pakistan. The Taliban spent several days in Sugar Land, Texas at UNOCAL's company headquarters. In spite of the civil war in Afghanistan at the time, both Unocal and Argentinian Bridas were in competition to construct the pipeline. In 1998, the Taliban were in discussion with UNOCAL in the USA and with Bridas in Argentina in an attempt to agree the building of a gas pipeline across Afghanistan.
Originally posted by deltaboy
Its simple...they do not represent the Afghan population because the Taliban was created by Pakistan.
transcripts.cnn.com...
In the 1980s, thousands of Arab men left their countries for Afghanistan, often with assistance from their governments, to help a fellow Muslim nation fight against Soviet intruders.
At the end of the Afghan-Soviet war, thousands of the so-called Afghan Arabs chose to remain. "Maybe about half an original 7,000 stayed and settled there," says Mohamed Salah. "They became part of the environment and took Afghan wives. And when the strict Islamic government of the Taliban came, the Afghan Arabs felt it was in accordance with their beliefs."
Originally posted by deltaboy
that the Taliban you say is part of the population which you mean it represents the Afghan people
Originally posted by deltaboy
Did the Taliban do it in the interests of the Afghan people? Or its interest of Al Qaeda which is also comprised of Arabs and Pakistanis.
Originally posted by deltaboy
If I remember, Mullah Omar the leader of the Taliban and supposedly the leader of the Afghan people, arranged a marriage with one of his daughters to Osama Bin Laden, in strengthening the alliance.
What does that tell you about the Taliban?
Originally posted by Communication_Monster
Alright, Shots, alright, maybe that was a bad analogy.
You can't just fall back on that to try and justify this, though. Civilian areas have been deliberatly hit with Airstrikes, that's just not acceptable.
Canada.com
Villagers also dug graves of slain Taliban rebels, he said.
U.S. commander Lt.-Gen. Karl Eikenberry told the AP on Monday that the military was ''looking into'' reports of civilian deaths. Other coalition officials said they were confident they had hit a Taliban compound.
Originally posted by shots
It is very easy to justify when some civilians were believed to harbor and support the insurgents. Hell they even buried them. Would you go out and bury someone that was responsible for your families death? I know I wouldn't :shk:
Canada.com
Villagers also dug graves of slain Taliban rebels, he said.
Originally posted by shots
U.S. commander Lt.-Gen. Karl Eikenberry told the AP on Monday that the military was ''looking into'' reports of civilian deaths. Other coalition officials said they were confident they had hit a Taliban compound.
Originally posted by Souljah
- Article 25: The attack or bombardment of towns, villages, habitations or buildings which are not defended, is prohibited.
Aerial area bombardment and international law
Article 26: The Commander of an attacking force, before commencing a bombardment, except in the case of an assault, should do all he can to warn the authorities.
Article 27: In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps should be taken to spare as far as possible edifices devoted to religion, art, science, and charity, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not used at the same time for military purposes.
Militants have repeatedly targetedaid workers, including doctors and teachers. Last month, gunmen stormed a medical clinic in a northwestern province and killed five doctors and nurses. Source
Originally posted by shots
I do believe the buildings were defended by the taliban you loose on that one.
All of which become legal targets when the enemy infiltrates them.
Fourth Geneva Convention
The Fourth Geneva Convention (or GCIV) relates to the protection of civilians during times of war "in the hands" of an enemy and under any occupation by a foreign power.
- Article 3 covers internal armed conflict and it provides similar protections to the population as those described in the rest of this document for a Protected person. That Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including POWs; shall in all circumstances be treated humanely.
- Article 4 defines who is a Protected person Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.
Article 5 is currently one of the most controversial articles of GCIV, because it forms, (along with Article 5 of the GCIII and parts of GCIV Article 4,) the Administration of the USA's interpretation of unlawful combatants.
Protocol I
It has not been adopted by several nations, including the United States, Afghanistan and Iraq, and is thus not universally applicable. The U.S. objection is on the basis that it would extend Geneva Conventions protection to some unlawful combatants.
Originally posted by Souljah
And none of us was there in the first place, so none of us can claim that they are right.
IF "The Enemy" Inflitrated them.
Actually I have a feeling that you do not feel any Remorse whatsoever for any fallen Civilan casualties in those kind of attacks.
Militants have repeatedly targetedaid workers, including doctors and teachers. Last month, gunmen stormed a medical clinic in a northwestern province and killed five doctors and nurses. Source