Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Afghanistan — A suicide bomber driving a truck attacked an advance NATO combat post in central Af

page: 3
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 07:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by TDawgRex
reply to post by NeverForget
 


People keep looking at the world through their own personal experiances, failing to realize that what goes on in the US, AUS, the UK, Germany, would not be tolerated in some parts of the world. Just look at how those hikers in Iran are being imprisoned.

What did they get for crossing some arbitrary line on the ground? Eight years.

Hikers! Ohh, big threat there.


Of course, what's great in many of those countries you mentioned is that people can protest, they can vote, in many Theocratic countries, they don't have a choice and will often be punished by death if they disagree with the state, or the state religion (apostates).




posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 07:10 AM
link   
reply to post by kn0wh0w
 


The "Logic" (I call it rationalizing) I use is that humans have been and until there is an interstellar threat, will always have conflict. History is chock full of it.

As for the use of Atomic weapons, it did help bring about the unconditional surrender of the Japanese empire. (I realize that there have been many theories postulated on that one)

I wish for peace as much as the next person. I’ve seen war, up close and personal. It’s not a video game were people who are killed get respawned at a different level.

But to think that humankind is all lovey dovey, just means that you deny the facts of the matter. We are a warlike race.

If the Vatican started trying to run America by the Bible of old, I would fight them as fiercely as I would the Taliban or Communists.

I try to hold to a standard of high honor, do right by my fellow and have a fairly rigid set of ethics as well. But I still always question them. Because if I don’t, I’ll stagnate and whither on the vine.



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by TDawgRex
reply to post by kn0wh0w
 


The "Logic" (I call it rationalizing) I use is that humans have been and until there is an interstellar threat, will always have conflict. History is chock full of it.

As for the use of Atomic weapons, it did help bring about the unconditional surrender of the Japanese empire. (I realize that there have been many theories postulated on that one)

I wish for peace as much as the next person. I’ve seen war, up close and personal. It’s not a video game were people who are killed get respawned at a different level.

But to think that humankind is all lovey dovey, just means that you deny the facts of the matter. We are a warlike race.

If the Vatican started trying to run America by the Bible of old, I would fight them as fiercely as I would the Taliban or Communists.

I try to hold to a standard of high honor, do right by my fellow and have a fairly rigid set of ethics as well. But I still always question them. Because if I don’t, I’ll stagnate and whither on the vine.


Very well said. I have no disagreement with you on your points there; very honourable (and fair)
edit on 11/9/2011 by NeverForget because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 07:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by hotbread
 


Why is the US still in Afghanistan? I thought it was "mission accompolished" after OBL was 'killed'.


We had to stay there in order to help the Afghan people and make sure that Afghanistan isn't going to back tow where they belong. Bush said that Bin Laden was the main reason but they are others reasons for Afghanistan as well.



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 09:55 AM
link   
Drudge headline

77 American soldiers wounded by Taliban truck bomb
www.ctv.ca...

Hmmmmmm

77 = 7/7 on 9/11

This clearly is subliminal referencing of other terror attacks to amplify the fear.



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by NeverForget
reply to post by purplemer
 


To show that we will not tolerate the needless blowing up of children, to show that their Holy war will be combatted, we will not go down without a fight.

AND to protect civilians in their own country, who are the victims of such suicide attacks too.
edit on 11/9/2011 by NeverForget because: (no reason given)


That is one lame duck excuse...

If you do not tolerate the needless blowing up of children. Why do you bomb cities and why do non hostile deaths exceed combative deaths...

Why did you start two wars that you never had the legitimate authority to start. Neither of which were never ratified under the united nations and therefore illegal.

If you care so much for human life, why do you have such disregard for the geneva convention and international laws that where put in place to stop the type of massacre that the USA is now interjecting upon the middle east.

Protect civilians in the own country....! Killing the civilians is the most perverse form of protection I have ever heard of. Please care to eleborate how you are caring for 600,000 men., women and children that have died in Iraq alone between 2003-2006...

mit.edu...

Do you know there were not suicide attacks in Iraq before the occupation started. What kind of delusional trickery would make one think they are protecting the citizens from these attacks when they are actually the cause of them..

As for going down without a fight, picking on a couple of developing nations and bombing them back into the stone age is your idea of fighting.....Never seen the USA pick on a country remotely its size..
Funny that eh...!

Respect live and deny ignorance.......




posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Paulioetc15
 





We had to stay there in order to help the Afghan people and make sure that Afghanistan isn't going to back tow where they belong. Bush said that Bin Laden was the main reason but they are others reasons for Afghanistan as well.



Most of Afghanistan is not under the control of the government that has been set up. The so called war is being lost. You are doing nothing to help the country... Bin Laden was not the reason for attacking Afghanistan. The taliban offered to find him and hand him in... Bush refused...

The best thing America and the allied forces can do to help is get themselves out of there and leave the peoples to regulate themselves..

It is non of our business....



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by purplemer
 




That is one lame duck excuse...


That's your opinion, I oppose violent fascist regimes, I oppose unarmed civilian death, whether it's in my country, or someone elses, I respect the Geneva Convention and i will oppose those who do not abide by it. Even my own country.


If you do not tolerate the needless blowing up of children. Why do you bomb cities and why do non hostile deaths exceed combative deaths...


I don't bomb anyone, I would rather see people it foreign countries being properly educated, being allowed the freedom to support the goverment they want, and not letting a small group of radicalised theocrats scare them into submission. I support a war of attrition, but not towards unarmed civilians.


Why did you start two wars that you never had the legitimate authority to start. Neither of which were never ratified under the united nations and therefore illegal.


I didn't start anything. There may have been no evidence for WMDs but I'd rather see theocratic facshist regimes destroyed before they consume the good people of their country, or neighbouring countries.


If you care so much for human life, why do you have such disregard for the geneva convention and international laws that where put in place to stop the type of massacre that the USA is now interjecting upon the middle east.


Again, i support the Geneva Convention, but there is evidence of other countries not holding true to that, and I won't support the appeasement of such regimes, as Hitler was appeased before he invaded Poland.


Protect civilians in the own country....! Killing the civilians is the most perverse form of protection I have ever heard of.


Then maybe you should start opposing theocratic radicals who blow up children and other civilians.


Please care to eleborate how you are caring for 600,000 men., women and children that have died in Iraq alone between 2003-2006...


50 to 70 million died in World War 2. Do you care for them? What about the Nazi soldiers? Do you care for them?

What would you have done? Left Hitler to his own devices? The allied forces wern't intending to blow up nations or civilians.

Pathetic argument.


[Do you know there were not suicide attacks in Iraq before the occupation started. What kind of delusional trickery would make one think they are protecting the citizens from these attacks when they are actually the cause of them..


Yes, their has always been terrorists. It was wrong of the USA/UK to call it "A War on Terrorism". Yes they were blowing their own civilians before we invaded, Were you protesting then? Were you moaning on forums then?

Doubt it.


As for going down without a fight, picking on a couple of developing nations and bombing them back into the stone age is your idea of fighting.....Never seen the USA pick on a country remotely its size..
Funny that eh...!


Do some research in two the World Wars you ignoramous, I'm not supporting bombing "nations" or "countries", I'm against radical groups , fascist regimes, like the Taliban or (The Nazis) who wish to destroy their own civilians and ruin their society, and ours.

The war isn't on civilians, and they've even improved education, sanitation and trained people in some parts.
edit on 11/9/2011 by NeverForget because: (no reason given)
edit on 11/9/2011 by NeverForget because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by purplemer
 


The UNSC didn't pass a resolution condemning US invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. We are a sovereign nation and we had right to act what best for our interests and right to act on the threat. The UN had no rule over the U.S. and other nations.



Bin Laden was not the reason for attacking Afghanistan. The taliban offered to find him and hand him in... Bush refused...


Wrong.
1) Bin Laden was to handed over to a neutral country. No excuse for that, Had to be in the U.S.
2) Upon evidence that the Taliban deemed as being credible.

So what that means is that the Taliban wanted the bombings to stop first. Then they would decide later if they would actually do it. All the evidence in the world could be handed over and they could still say "no," and just use that time to entrench themselves, despite they fact that you had OBL claiming responsibility for it.



It was not a real offer of anything if you apply a little reasoning. President George Bush rejected as "non-negotiable" an offer by the Taliban to discuss turning over Osama bin Laden if the United States ended the bombing in Afghanistan. Returning to the White House after a weekend at Camp David, the president said the bombing would not stop, unless the ruling Taliban "turn [bin Laden] over, turn his cohorts over, turn any hostages they hold over." He added, "There's no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he's guilty". In Jalalabad, deputy prime minister Haji Abdul Kabir - the third most powerful figure in the ruling Taliban regime - told reporters that the Taliban would require evidence that Bin Laden was behind the September 11 terrorist attacks in the US, but added: "we would be ready to hand him over to a third country".
edit on 11-9-2011 by Paulioetc15 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by hotbread
 


Why is the US still in Afghanistan? I thought it was "mission accompolished" after OBL was 'killed'.

Originally posted by Se7enex
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 


Maybe we need more oil?





Typical response of the self righteous ignorant.
Afghanistan has no oil...

But please feel free to continue with your presumptuous agenda riddled erroneous line of questions.



Originally posted by Se7enex
Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda don't exist.


I don't know how old you are or how far back your memories go but if you were alive and alert before 9/11 you'd know that this was nothing more than an ongoing continuation of escalating events. But if you were not old enough to remember or were not even cognitively aware of events or your surroundings during the period in discussion then I'd suggest not relying on conspiracy sites and or chat rooms for your history lessons.





Originally posted by Se7enex
This is indeed sad news but it's always about us, the invaders. The guys with scary guns and tanks and bombers. We never hear about the civilian deaths we've caused.


Blowing up young school girls who simply want a chance at an education {which the Taliban despise} is a great way of fighting off the invaders.


Ignorance is bliss. Keep spewing it!


edit on 11-9-2011 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 

Okay Slayer69. . . .

Afghanistan may have no oil but has massive stores of Lithium (for batteries) and it is also where the oil companies decided to run their pipeline through (before the war) to avoid other risky areas.

Kissinger even was the representative for those oil companies.

Why do you get upset about people pointing out all the civilians the USA soldiers are killing?



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by MasterGemini
Kissinger even was the representative for those oil companies.


Kissinger is an ASS. What? I'm suppose to defend him?



Why do you get upset about people pointing out all the civilians the USA soldiers are killing?


Who is upset?
I'm just chiming in with some facts. I'm surprised some members here who think of themselves as being "enlightened or knowledgeable" love to either ignore other related aspects or simply were unaware of them

That is all.



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by MasterGemini
Kissinger even was the representative for those oil companies.


Kissinger is an ASS. What? I'm suppose to defend him?



Why do you get upset about people pointing out all the civilians the USA soldiers are killing?


Who is upset?
I'm just chiming in with some facts. I'm surprised some members here who think of themselves as being "enlightened or knowledgeable" love to either ignore other related aspects or simply were unaware of them

That is all.


LoL Oh, umm carry on then.



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by MasterGemini
 


idk. What you're describing as a resource war seems more like me a suicidal run if it was for that. I'm pretty sure we haven't even tapped the ebbing of the full potential of those resources because of the huge billion population country that probably has told us behind closed doors to not touch anything, they want it.

just speculation. Because I sure as hell wouldn't grab gold from the dragon's layer.



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 12:14 PM
link   
You know what they say........WARS HELL



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 12:22 PM
link   
Here's a real quick and easy way to stop all the killing in Afganistan.

Sop shooting at us, and we will stop shooting at you!


Just surrender, give Obama props, make a few speeches, and we're outa there.


We'll build some schools, some hospitals, and right after we leave. .. . the islamic nutweasels can burn them down, kill women for learning how to read, grow more heroin, and get right back to the15th century.


See how easy this is?

Just surrender and we'll go away.

(awesome, ain't it?)



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


One little mistake.

Heroin growing was banned by the Taliban and they enforced that ban.

It picked up again once the USA invaded.



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by MasterGemini
 


Yes, maybe individualw have private interests (including men within those countries too), but you can't blame the American goverment for that.

If the "goverment" or the "people" knew about that, and if there was evidence it was American officials, then they would be condemned, protested and voted against.

Got evidence for that anyway? Or just conspiracy theory?

I know the War on Drugs has been inneffective, but you can't blame goverments for the private finnancial interests of greedy men or "gangs".
edit on 11/9/2011 by NeverForget because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by MasterGemini
reply to post by beezzer
 


One little mistake.

Heroin growing was banned by the Taliban and they enforced that ban.

It picked up again once the USA invaded.



Wrong...

I love it when people regurgitate that well known fallacy..

First off, 5 of the 6 years they were in power they flourished by profiting from the sales of Heroin to the Russian mob. It wasn't until the last year that they tried to ban it's growth because the market was flooded by heroin grown in provinces that were not under Taliban control and they were losing massive profits. Remember, Afghanistan was in the middle of a civil war before 9/11 or the arrival of US/NATO troops.

Second, as all the detractors of the situation always like to claim the US/NATO did not have control of all the provinces which were under Taliban control. {Where the majority of Heroin was being Grown} meanwhile the Taliban were and have been and continue to use the profits of it's sale to fund their war efforts.



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 12:41 PM
link   
yeah seems to me that clintons 4 chances to kill bin laden or "Arrest" him

we would have never went afghanistan for "oil"





new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join



atslive.com

hi-def

low-def