Truckloads of dead civilians after Afghan battle

~double post~

[edit on 6/5/09 by spearhead]

reply to post by spearhead


My national interest is this:
1. They have nukes
2. They could start a war with india
3. Does the world really need a fanatical Muslim government that has a history of supporting terrorists?
4. We let the Pakistanis try to handle it by themselves and they been losing ground. Do you really think we would be there if the Pakistani goernment could do it.

reply to post by justsomeboreddude


I really can't do another one of these useless debates.

Can i just withdraw and declare victory?

reply to post by milesp


Sure whatever you wish. If it makes you feel better you are right and I am wrong and I think the world will be a better place when the Taliban take over the world. Feel better?

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude
reply to post by munkey66

 

I would expect China to hunt me and my family down if they invaded our country. That is why I see it as necessary to win the wars you are in and in protecting the nation. Do you really think any country wouldnt slaughter us alive if they defeated us? As bad as you think America is to civilians we are actually the nice guys, do you see the Russians, Iranians, etc worrying about collateral damage when they ffight. No you dont.

Russia and Iranian reference when neither are at war.

I thought Iran was defending itself.

Not trying to create a bad buy are you?

reply to post by munkey66


I was just giving an example. Have you ever seen what Russia has done during a war. They dont screw around. So I guess you think that the Russians and Iranians would be real nice to us if they had us on our knees.



[edit on 6-5-2009 by justsomeboreddude]

reply to post by justsomeboreddude



that means jackall.
america is supposed to stand for certain things... like freedom.

that attitude is why america is going down the road it is.

~double post~

[edit on 6/5/09 by spearhead]

reply to post by spearhead

Most here are so quick to mention that they don't believe a word of the U.S. media or news from the Pentagon, yet are happy to accept reports from abroad with open arms and immediately believe the U.S. is guilty.

How about you wait until the facts are known before jumping to conclusions.

The Taliban could have caused these casualties with their RPG and are trying to manipulate the news. You do realize this is a strategy of theirs right?

Or some of these so called civilians could have actually been dead Taliban and they are trying to make you believe they are civilians. You do realize they have done this before right?

The report said that U.S. troops only assisted with the battle so perhaps the casualties were not even caused by the U.S.

My point is that why do so many take reports out of that area as gospel when you practically dismiss anything from the U.S. media or Pentagon as propaganda. You do realize the enemy also has a propaganda machine right?

Even IF the casualties were caused by U.S. airstrikes, it is still the fault of the enemy for mixing and hiding in with the civilian population and for dressing like civilians instead of wearing uniforms.

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude
reply to post by munkey66

 

I was just giving an example. Have you ever seen what Russia has done during a war. They dont screw around. So I guess you think that the Russians and Iranians would be real nice to us if they had us on our knees.



[edit on 6-5-2009 by justsomeboreddude]

That is just terrible logic. Lets kill innocent people because Russia (who no one was talking about) and Iran (also no one was talking about) just might do it to us.

Hypothetically, in that case if Afghanistan had nukes at the begining of this war, they should have hit two of our cities because that is what we did to Japan when they bombed us. That would be fine with you.

reply to post by lucidclouds


Ok one last post before I go to bed. Do you really believe that is AlQuaeda had nukes it wouldnt use them against us? Do you think that if we didnt have nukes and one heck of a military Russia and China wouldnt make a run at us?

Oh and one more thing. My logic isnt terrible. My point is we are less destructive to the civilians than everyone else in war, but civilians die in war. It is not something I enjoy. I am just a realist. In wars we are in less civilians die than when any other nation fights a war these days.


Good night guys. Had fun debating with you. Sleep well. You can flame me after I leave and I will pick up the fight tomorrow. Night Night Sleep Tight.


[edit on 6-5-2009 by justsomeboreddude]

[edit on 6-5-2009 by justsomeboreddude]

reply to post by WhatTheory

Even IF the casualties were caused by U.S. airstrikes, it is still the fault of the enemy for mixing and hiding in with the civilian population and for dressing like civilians instead of wearing uniforms.

when your outnumbered and out-gunned, the way i'm sure the taliban are, then guerilla tactics are, but what other option?
if america is now "assisting" pakistan its obvious that the US has just employed another 'patsy' to wear the blame.

America and it's allies (including Australia) need to be more responsible with the way they conduct their operations. if civilian casualties are going to be an issue, the operation should be re-assessed not just carried out with complete and utter disregard for human life.

but that's just not how they work over there, hey?

[edit on 6/5/09 by spearhead]

Originally posted by WhatTheory
reply to post by spearhead

 

Most here are so quick to mention that they don't believe a word of the U.S. media or news from the Pentagon, yet are happy to accept reports from abroad with open arms and immediately believe the U.S. is guilty.

How about you wait until the facts are known before jumping to conclusions.

The Taliban could have caused these casualties with their RPG and are trying to manipulate the news. You do realize this is a strategy of theirs right?

Or some of these so called civilians could have actually been dead Taliban and they are trying to make you believe they are civilians. You do realize they have done this before right?

The report said that U.S. troops only assisted with the battle so perhaps the casualties were not even caused by the U.S.

My point is that why do so many take reports out of that area as gospel when you practically dismiss anything from the U.S. media or Pentagon as propaganda. You do realize the enemy also has a propaganda machine right?

Even IF the casualties were caused by U.S. airstrikes, it is still the fault of the enemy for mixing and hiding in with the civilian population and for dressing like civilians instead of wearing uniforms.

Facts? The start was just as wrong as it is now. The death toll is rising there. The death toll of innocent people. Do you remember the airstrike of 2001 in Afghanistan? It killed around 3,000 innocent people. It makes me sick to think of how high that number has risen.

I hope you don't think that the number killed equals the number of terrorist killed.

[edit on 6-5-2009 by lucidclouds]

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude
reply to post by lucidclouds

 

Ok one last post before I go to bed. Do you really believe that is AlQuaeda had nukes it wouldnt use them against us? Do you think that if we didnt have nukes and one heck of a military Russia and China wouldnt make a run at us?

Oh and one more thing. My logic isnt terrible. My point is we are less destructive to the civilians than everyone else in war, but civilians die in war. It is not something I enjoy. I am just a realist. In wars we are in less civilians die than when any other nation fights a war these days.


Good night guys. Had fun debating with you. Sleep well. You can flame me after I leave and I will pick up the fight tomorrow. Night Night Sleep Tight.

[edit on 6-5-2009 by justsomeboreddude]

[edit on 6-5-2009 by justsomeboreddude]

I said hypothetically...Maybe you should look up the word hypothetically, then get back to me.

Also you say: "My point is we are less destructive to the civilians than everyone else in war"

Are you serious? Just dropping bombs on two cities full of civilians would show that statement wrong. Those were some of the worst terrorist acts in human history.

I hope you don't think that the number killed equals the number of terrorist killed.

not sure what side of the fence you are sitting on but its extremly likely that more innocents have died than need be.
and i'm sure that more innocents than need be have been labelled terrorists or insurgents to save face.

but we'll never know because we only seem to know what they want to tell us.

`double post`

[edit on 6/5/09 by spearhead]

Originally posted by spearhead

I hope you don't think that the number killed equals the number of terrorist killed.

not sure what side of the fence you are sitting on but its extremly likely that more innocents have died than need be.
and i'm sure that more innocents than need be have been labelled terrorists or insurgents to save face.

but we'll never know because we only seem to know what they want to tell us.

I agree. So many innocent killed. I just don't understand some peoples logic. They will defend whatever "their" country does regardless of how wrong, brutal, criminal, or murderous it acts. Sad.

What i see going on here is a lot of armchair military strategist who think they know how to conduct operations in a time of war , against an unconventional enemy.....

2nd I agree, jumping to conclusions on something that came out without knowing the facts could indeed be buying in to the propaganda machine.

It also occurs to me that this is the same strategy used in the media against Israel....

People get upset over loss of civilian life, but fail to understand, read, or review exactly what the enemy is doing to cause this.

When you fight an enemy that hides within a civilian population this sort of thing happens.

There was a poster above that mentioned they could have been insurgent fighters killed and brought in , in the guise of innocents. This can and DOES happen in these areas.

For the same reason that was stated that these fighters are outgunned, is the same reason they will use these tactics. You destroy a country you cant beat with your arms by attacking it at home through methods such as this. They lose the backing, you win the war.

You have to fully understand the mindset of the people we are up against over there before coming to quick conclusions.

Having served tours over there myself I know personally what these people are capable of and some of the tactics they use.

You bring in a bus load of faux civilian casualties and people will be lining up at your door to sign up for your cause.

Im not saying that this COULDNT or DIDNT happen, but i would wait till the facts are completely out before i would pass judgement.

reply to post by ManBehindTheMask


it would be easy to sit and wait for the facts but usually they never come. i watch these articles arrive and disappear in the blink of an eye.
i understand the difficulty in "fighting" this type of war. i have friends who have been there.
you'd think the US would of learned by now not to go fighting causes that aren't their concern. they go in and try to institute a government that will be US friendly or manipulate others into trying for them.
its almost as if there is justifcation for this type of occupation that they are not telling us.

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude
Its war. Sometimes innocent people die. It sucks, but its part of war. This is especially true when your enemy tries to hide by going into peoples villages and houses.

Aren't you doing the same by hiding here among the honest and innocent people of the ATS?

And assuming that war is an excuse for first degree murder is actually a premeditation of first degree murder.