NATO air strike kills eight Afghan women

page: 3
18
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag

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

How about if the police shoot one of your family members because someone took them hostage. Then they say "collateral damage, at least we got the thug".

I'm sure you wouldn't have the same attitude then.




posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by GLaDOS
 


My first thought is, these taliban jerks use women and children all the time to pull of their dirty work. My husband lived amongst them for 15 months and could attest to the fact that the culture puts women and children lower than animals. They will not hesitate to put women in a place they know NATO will strike to use it as propoganda.

He saw first hand, a mentally disabled woman (he said he thought she had downs syndrome) walk into a crowded market and blow the place up. Later it was determined she was suited up with a suicide vest and was detonated by a remote using a cell phone.

My second thought is, do you not remember how many INNOCENT men and women were MURDERED on 9/11? Children were on those airplanes. So, not to sound callous, but war is hell.

This is sensationalistic media at its best. Do not fall into the "the US is killing innocent men and women" when I can almost guarentee you that the taliban are putting the women and children in these places for this purpose.



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by k21968
 


Those of us who have been there and experienced it first hand understand. The rest are just on the outside looking in and trying to rationalize it.



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by GLaDOS
 


Actually, do some research. Russia invaded Afganistan and destroyed the country. There are still very few trees in this vast country because the Russians burned them all down. The Russians came in, stripped the country of everything it had, raped and murdered their women. NATO invaded after Bush proclaimed that any country known to harbor terrorists would be considered an act of war. THEN NATO invaded. Nato invaded because the taliban had strong holds in Afghanistan and was a known hiding place of Bin Laden. Therefore NATO invaded to find that useless piece of crap.

My husband spent a lot of time in Afghanistan since 9/11 and has met with many tribal leaders in his time there. My husband can tell you better than I (but he wont join ATS) that the people are glad NATO is there. The country is better now than it was 10 yrs ago.

You cannot rely on the MSM to tell you anything except how horrible the US is. We are not the terrorists. We responded to terrorism when our men and women and children were murdered by the taliban on 9/11.



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by k21968
reply to post by GLaDOS
 

We responded to terrorism when our men and women and children were murdered by the taliban on 9/11.

Make your mind up. Was it Al-Qaeda or the Taliban?


And isn't killing a million+ civilians enough of a response?
edit on 16/9/2012 by GLaDOS because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by GLaDOS
 



How about if the police shoot one of your family members because someone took them hostage. Then they say "collateral damage, at least we got the thug".

I'm sure you wouldn't have the same attitude then.


The Taliban has no more taken the people of Afghanistan “hostage” than President Obama has taken American’s hostage. These innocent people were not targeted, though they had to be aware they were walking alongside terrorists in their town.

A better analogy would have been - If you were a murderer and fugitive from justice and your family members accidently got shot while police were shooting it out with you at your home is that their fault?? No! However, they damn sure knew they had a murderer in their house and that it could pose a problem for them!! They didn’t have to let you in their house. They could have turned you in themselves and remained safe but they chose not to. It’s tragic but a lot of things in life are tragic. We have to live with the decisions we make - good and bad.



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


No matter how much sense you make, you mind as well hold your breath. Nobody wants to accept the fact that these people are knowingly associating with terrorists and its their own fault they got killed



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


Seabag, can you just explain to me how a reinforced steel frame was MELTED even though the temperature from the explosion was not as high as the melting point of it?



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by 369821
reply to post by seabag
 


No matter how much sense you make, you mind as well hold your breath. Nobody wants to accept the fact that these people are knowingly associating with terrorists and its their own fault they got killed

Right, I'll say the same thing. If you got shot by the police because you were in the vicinity of a criminal, would you be OK with that?



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by GLaDOS
 



Seabag, can you just explain to me how a reinforced steel frame was MELTED even though the temperature from the explosion was not as high as the melting point of it?


I’m not going to derail the OP’s thread discussing 9/11 conspiracy. I’m familiar with the argument and I’ve read a lot about it. I’m just not prepared to overlook the reality that radical Muslim terrorists exist and they want to kill infidels (non Muslims). NATO isn't shooting at a ghost.....they're very real and they fire real bullets.

It’s a shame innocent people got killed in Afghanistan but that’s life. Don’t harbor bad guys and you won't become collateral damage!



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by GLaDOS
 


If I knew he was a criminal and currently committing crimes, I'd be fine with it. I'd say I got what I deserved. Whats the old saying about running with dogs?



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by 369821
reply to post by GLaDOS
 


If I knew he was a criminal and currently committing crimes, I'd be fine with it. I'd say I got what I deserved. Whats the old saying about running with dogs?

Don't bull# mate. If that happened you would sue. Be honest.

@SeaBag, OK, but just so you know:

Indsor Tower in Madrid, Spain burned for 20+ hours and never collapsed.

No steel frame structure has ever collapsed due to fire, before or after 9/11. On 9/11, 3 collapsed, due to "structural failure from fires".



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by 369821
 



If I knew he was a criminal and currently committing crimes, I'd be fine with it. I'd say I got what I deserved. Whats the old saying about running with dogs?


If you play with snakes you’re gonna get bit.

Fact of life!



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by GLaDOS
 



@SeaBag, OK, but just so you know:

Indsor Tower in Madrid, Spain burned for 20+ hours and never collapsed.

No steel frame structure has ever collapsed due to fire, before or after 9/11. On 9/11, 3 collapsed, due to "structural failure from fires".


I think our government may have been complicent in some way. Just as Obama was complicent in the death of border patrol agents as a result of fast & furious, and the death of our diplomat last week as a result of failure to take the threats seriously and take necessary precautions.

However, I’m not prepared to overlook the reality that radical Muslim terrorists exist and they want to kill infidels. It’s a shame innocent people got killed in Afghanistan but that’s life. Don’t harbor bad guys!



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 06:34 PM
link   
Hmmm, I am curious about something Seabag.

Let's say our country in the not to distant future breaks down into chaos and lawlessness when the dollar collapses.

The Chinese come in to take advantage of the situation, but tell their people, it is to liberate them from the tyrannical government that has declared martial law and killing protesters, and innocent civilians left and right.
Would the ones fighting the Chinese be terrorists?
Would the male heads of the households doing the fighting, be harboring innocents if they stood their ground with their families hiding in the houses?
Would the heads of the households be terrorists?

It is all a matter of perspective on where we stand.

Bottom line is, it has been 11 years since 911, so why are we still burning up my tax dollars, and having my fellow countrymen killed in countries all over the middle east, that had nothing to do with 911?




Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by GLaDOS
 



@SeaBag, OK, but just so you know:

Indsor Tower in Madrid, Spain burned for 20+ hours and never collapsed.

No steel frame structure has ever collapsed due to fire, before or after 9/11. On 9/11, 3 collapsed, due to "structural failure from fires".


I think our government may have been complicent in some way. Just as Obama was complicent in the death of border patrol agents as a result of fast & furious, and the death of our diplomat last week as a result of failure to take the threats seriously and take necessary precautions.

However, I’m not prepared to overlook the reality that radical Muslim terrorists exist and they want to kill infidels. It’s a shame innocent people got killed in Afghanistan but that’s life. Don’t harbor bad guys!


edit on 16-9-2012 by jacobe001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 07:36 PM
link   
First, let me say that it is a tragedy that any civilian is killed, especially in a war we have no business being in. Having said that, it is hypocritical that Hamid Karzai , the worlds biggest drug dealer, gets uppity about it. He could care less. His only concern is that NATO doesn't destroy his poppy fields.



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by jacobe001
 



Hmmm, I am curious about something Seabag.

Let's say our country in the not to distant future breaks down into chaos and lawlessness when the dollar collapses.


OK…you have my attention!





The Chinese come in to take advantage of the situation, but tell their people, it is to liberate them from the tyrannical government that has declared martial law and killing protesters, and innocent civilians left and right.

Would the ones fighting the Chinese be terrorists?


No, because American’s have never harbored terrorists guilty of attacking China.




Would the male heads of the households doing the fighting, be harboring innocents if they stood their ground with their families hiding in the houses?


Taliban aren’t defending the people of Afghanistan, they’re suppressing them. The Taliban are the problem not the solution. In your proposition the Chinese are coming in to rescue the PROBLEM from the SOLUTION!





Would the heads of the households be terrorists?


NOPE!




It is all a matter of perspective on where we stand.


Perspective and misguided analogies….yup!




Bottom line is, it has been 11 years since 911, so why are we still burning up my tax dollars, and having my fellow countrymen killed in countries all over the middle east, that had nothing to do with 911?


OUR tax dollars…..and I agree that we should leave. As far as the reasoning for US going to war...I think we did the right thing; we were attacked.



posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 01:48 AM
link   
congratulations nato.

lets do the math.

8 daughters have 8 fathers. those 8 daughters most likely have 2-5 brothers each and have 2-5 uncles each. each of those uncles could have 3-5 sons.

they also could have 8 husbands. they marry young and have arranged marriages. those 8 husbands could have 2-5 brothers each, plus 1-8 fathers, plus each of them could have uncles and dozens of cousins.

not to mention friends.

right about now all of them have swore revenge on the blood and graves of their daughter/wife/sister and cousin and to spill the blood of every american and nato force they can find.


edit on 17-9-2012 by randomname because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 01:53 AM
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.




Wasn't it George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld that help put Saddam in power ? Wasn't it the CIA that funded and trained Osama during the Afghan/Russia conflict ? Didn't 16 of the 19 alleged 'terrorists" from 9/11 come from Saudi Arabia ?
So didn't Bush and Rumsfeld help with a safe haven for what they then class as an "evil dictator", up until the point that Saddam had served his purpose [USA interests] ?
Why is it Ok for the CIA to fund and train people fighting the Russsians, yet as soon as the Russians leave, those same soldiers are then classed a s terrorists by the same people that helped train and fund them, once they had served their purpose [USA interests].
Why hasn't Saudi Arabia even been investigated to prove the 16 were not trained in Saudi Arabia, which is also the same country that the so-called mastermind of 9/11 came from ?
Why are Black ops troops [funded by the US taxpayer] patrolling the CIA run opium fields in Afghanistan, the same Afghanistan that now controls over 95% of the worlds herion supply, will then claiming to be "fighting the war on drugs" back home ?
You can't cry about being the victim, when you are selectively instigating most of the trouble, and just like with evreything in life, there are 2 sides to every story !
And don't you just love how people dismiss the loss of innocent life as "collateral damage". But would that same term be used to describe their own family members if killed in the same circumstances ?
In that case, the Ambassador's recently killed in places of politcal and civil untrest were just victims of "collateral damage" and can now also be swept under the rug and no further action required. And if any family members of the killed Ambassadors who complain will now be classed as having a cry !
And wasn't Osama allegedly found HIDING in a SAFE HAVEN in PAKISTAN ? So when does the bombing start in Pakistan for housing Osama ?
But I suppose its just a co-incidence that the countries attacked for providing a safe haven [Iraq/Afghanistan] don't have nuclear bombs, yet the countries that provided a safe haven but do have nuclear weapons [Pakistan] don't get attacked ?
Just like with the term "collateral damage", there seems to be selective memories being used when the term "safe haven" is applied !



posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 03:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
That sector was heavily forested and had been intel that insurgents often hid there.

It was most unfortunate that those women happened to be there in that war zone, and most certainly NATO forces were not targetting them, but rather, the militants whom had murdered innocent civilians in broad daylight open country.

President Kharzi is a bum. He screams bloody murder right now at NATO forces, and yet when innocent civilians and nato troops were murdered, where was his outrage?

It only goes to show he prefers and panders to the Talibans, the very beasts whom had refused to talk but to exterminate humankind, rather than take a harder stance against them.

His refusal to take such a stance against the criminals will cost him dearly, from nato nation taxpayers whom had sacrificed their savings to help the afghan people, as well as the innocent afghanis and even border pakistanis whom had suffered enough and want the Taliban bullies exterminated.


It's apparently heavily forested, so that is a likely place for collecting firewood, huh? So there is intel supposedly that militants hang out in there, so clearly anyone in there is a militant. *NOT* It is the killings like these that are angering the Afghans and causing them to join the Taliban.

Agreed, Karzai is a bum. And he is the US's bum because the US helped to install him. So why should he care if US/NATO forces get killed. US/NATO forces are killing his citizens, as in this killing of women and children. Afghans don't care that NATO/US soldiers are killed, since these foreign forces are killing innocent civilians. But what does Karzai and whatever he has to say -- good or bad or nothing at all -- when US/NATO forces are killed have to do with the fact that the US/NATO forces are making mistaken killings of Afghans and Muslim peoples in other countries, which is causing the mounting anger against the US worldwide? Nothing, that's what. Yet, this is the point of the thread. You go on and on about Karzai, but that is not the point of the discussion here.

All you are doing is making excuses for such egregious atrocities by US troops. Do you really think that people in these countries and other Muslim are going to be swayed by such lame exucses/arguments such as yours? Consider if a foreign power was killing your fellow citizens in your country or people of your religion around the world. Would you accept the arguments you give here in your post to excuse the killing of innocents by this foreign power?



  exclusive video


new topics
top topics
 
18
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join