Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

NATO air strike kills eight Afghan women

page: 2
18
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by popcornmafia

Originally posted by GLaDOS
reply to post by seabag
 


Oh, I'm sorry. You believe the official story of 9/11. I should've known.


Only nut jobs and third world muslims don't


If not believing everything our Govt says is being a nutjob, then im proud to call myself one.




posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by GLaDOS
 

Thats probably because we care about our people in general and dont use them as weapons, shields and roving bombs. But thats just my opinion. And what do I know, I only dedicated most of my life to military service. So, I may just be a bit jaded.



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag

Originally posted by GLaDOS
reply to post by seabag
 


Oh, I'm sorry. You believe the official story of 9/11. I should've known.


Who is it that NATO is targeting??

Who is fighting us?



You act as though we’re just there for no damn reason.

What do you expect them to do? US forces invaded their land and are killing them. Do you expect them all to sit back be killed? no, they will fight for their survival...

Just imagine this: Someone breaks into your house with a gun with the intent to kill you. You have a gun too. Would you just sit there and let him kill you, or will you use your own gun to kill him?



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 02:11 PM
link   
Only when it's at our doorstep and innocents are killed here will the rest understand what it means and how wrong it is. It's easy to brush this off when it doesn't directly affect us.

I wish I could pluck some of you up and throw you right into the middle of this conflict and see how your reactions change. Especially when it's your child or family member dying in your arms.



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by GLaDOS
 


Well actually ISAF was welcomed by many Afghani's when they were first deployed to secure Kabul and the surrounding region from The Taliban in accordance with UN Security Resolution 1386.

Of course they've screwed up a bit since then but you seem to be implying that NATO invaded Afghanistan and that is simply incorrect.

I can not begin to excuse the killing of these eight women - but I'd accept your outrage with a bit more credibility if you expressed the same level of disgust for the fifteen people who were recently beheaded by The Taliban for simply attending a party.

Yes, these deaths seem to be as a result of some sort of criminal negligence and these mistakes happen far too frequently - as does the brutal and extreme treatment of those who refuse to live by the repressive dictates of The Taliban.

It seems to me that you only take the moral high ground when it suits your personal agenda to do so.



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 


Don't get me wrong - I do not support the Taliban. They're blood thirsty animals, too. But them killing civilians doesn't excuse the fact when NATO kills civilians...

When the Taliban kills people, the news is hyped up. But when it is NATO, it is mentioned once or twice then is forgotten.



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by GLaDOS
 



What do you expect them to do? US forces invaded their land and are killing them. Do you expect them all to sit back be killed? no, they will fight for their survival...


Do you expect America to sit back and allow some third-world thugs to kill 3,000 innocent Americans and do nothing?

Apparently you do….oh, that’s right, 9/11 was staged by our government so we could go to Afghanistan and play in the sand and pick a fight. What sense does that make? What resources have we stolen?


I do think US and NATO should leave. I don’t think it should have been announced, but I think we should pull out now. No more wars with boots on the ground. If any country attacks America again congress should declare war and we should bomb them into the stone ages.

Is it OK for the US to fight for it's survival?



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 





Do you expect America to sit back and allow some third-world thugs to kill 3,000 innocent Americans and do nothing?


Wait, didnt Obama "kill" Bin Laden.



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
I do think US and NATO should leave. I don’t think it should have been announced, but I think we should pull out now. No more wars with boots on the ground. If any country attacks America again congress should declare war and we should bomb them into the stone ages.

Is it OK for the US to fight for it's survival?

Why bomb them into 'the stone age'? Are you in favour of punishing the civilians even though the Govt. decided to launch the attack?

And of course it is. If any country is directly attacked, they have every right to fight. But going into Afghanistan was not fighting for survival...

The guy who, according to the official story, carried out the attack (OBL) is dead. So why carry on fighting?
edit on 16/9/2012 by GLaDOS because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Juggernog
 


No, Obama didnt do a thing. According to the lie, the Navy SEALS went into his compound in Pakistan and shot him in the head just above the left eye. Which I find to be the most ridiculous lie ever told. Osama Bin Laden has been dead since 2001. That is a FACT that you can take to the bank.



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by 369821
reply to post by Juggernog
 


No, Obama didnt do a thing. According to the lie, the Navy SEALS went into his compound in Pakistan and shot him in the head just above the left eye. Which I find to be the most ridiculous lie ever told. Osama Bin Laden has been dead since 2001. That is a FACT that you can take to the bank.


Why do you think I put "kill" in quotes?

The point I was trying to make was that we went to Afghanistan to get Osama and according to the Govt, they got em.. Sooo, why are we still there?
edit on 16-9-2012 by Juggernog because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Juggernog
 



Wait, didnt Obama "kill" Bin Laden.


It was a rhetorical question….

He said the Taliban was justified in defending itself so why isn’t the same courtesy afforded to the US after it was attacked?

We weren't attacked by Bin Laden....we were attacked by Taliban under the direction of Bin Laden. Who is it that's shooting at us still if the mission is complete?

edit on 16-9-2012 by seabag because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by Juggernog
 



Wait, didnt Obama "kill" Bin Laden.


It was a rhetorical question….

He said the Taliban was justified in defending itself so why isn’t the same courtesy afforded to the US after it was attacked?

We weren't attacked by Bin Laden....we were attacked by Taliban under the direction of Bin Laden. Who is it that shooting at us still if the mission is complete?
edit on 16-9-2012 by seabag because: (no reason given)


Wait, I thought Al Quaeda attacked us and Osama was the leader?



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by GLaDOS
 


More fuel to the fire.The small kid who has seen this will be the future taliban fighter,or may be not!!!Sow the seeds of rebellion..



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Juggernog
 


Sorry, I mistook you.



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by GLaDOS
 




Don't get me wrong - I do not support the Taliban. They're blood thirsty animals, too.


That's good to hear.


Far too many people only seem to have selective moral indignation.



But them killing civilians doesn't excuse the fact when NATO kills civilians..


I think you may be surprised but I think most people agree with you - even those who support ISAF's role in Afghanistan.
I know it's a cliche but two wrongs do not make a right.
.


When the Taliban kills people, the news is hyped up.


I'm sorry but I really don't see that here in the UK.
When a UK soldier dies, like one did on Friday by an IED and two more were yesterday by yet another rogue Afghan policeman, we see a few lines in the newspaper and maybe a minute on the national news then it's forgotten - the UK media will give more attention to this than any UK soldier being killed - and that boils my blood - they seem to bend themselves over backwards so as not to upset extremists sensitivities.



But when it is NATO, it is mentioned once or twice then is forgotten.


Whilst it is NATO led the force in Afghanistan is unanimously supported and sanctioned by UN Security Council Resolution 1386 and as such is really an International Security Assisstance Force.

After the initial sensationalised headlines then yes it does tend to be forgotten but like I say that's not unique to civilian deaths - there's even less publicity of deaths through friendly fire but I guess that's a discussion for another time and place.

As I said previously, there can be no excuse for these killings and it happens far too frequently.
I think it's easy for someone like myself with no military experience to criticise and say it is due to negligence - but given the resources our armed services have at their disposal I fail to see what else it can be.

But I also recognise that in the heat of the moment certain decisions have to be made and sometimes they will be the wrong one's - that's the way of the world I'm afraid.
And it doesn't help that The Taliban sometimes use the civilian population as human shields or as diversions etc.

Not much in this world is black and white.



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 


I wasn't really talking about UK. UK news is pretty unbiased most of the time, but I get what you mean about the soldiers. Seems like people are more worried about Kate's topless photos instead of the death of soldiers.
edit on 16/9/2012 by GLaDOS because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by GLaDOS
 


Don't get me wrong, the UK MSM can be exceptionally biased at times - but the deaths of UK servicemen doesn't seem to be one of those times.

And it's pretty damning indictment of our society that as you correctly point out people seem more concerned about a woman's tits than they do Afghanistan.
edit on 16/9/12 by Freeborn because: grammar and clarity



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Juggernog
 



Wait, I thought Al Quaeda attacked us and Osama was the leader?



You’re right…..I misspoke. Bin Laden lead al-Qaida and the Taliban regime was harboring him. The Taliban and al-Qaida were and remain close allies.


Documents found in the house where Osama bin Laden was killed a year ago show a close working relationship between top al-Qaida leaders and Mullah Omar, the overall commander of the Taliban, including frequent discussions of joint operations against Nato forces in Afghanistan, the Afghan government and targets in Pakistan.
link

When you harbor terrorists you can't cry about collateral damage.



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by GLaDOS
 



Again, I present the same point. The Afghans did NOT ask you to go there! NATO went there with their own choice.


Then they shouldn’t have provided a safe haven and training grounds for terrorists who attacked the US of A.

You can’t cry about collateral damage when you’re knowingly housing the target.




Then why do so many cry about the near 3000 persons who were collateral damage in NY?
edit on 9/16/2012 by roadgravel because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
18
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join