reply to post by Shamrock6
just because you choose to call it a conflict and not a war doesn't change the fact that it's a legally mandated combat engagement. you can argue
and debate the legality of it all you want, but you CHOOSING to call it what you WANT doesn't change what it actually is.
I call it like I see it, you are also guilty of CHOOSING to call it what you want and you are right, it doesn't change what it actually is, it is
what it is. Another thing you are guilty of is refusing to put the situation into proper context as your views on this whole scenario are obviously
biased to the point where you will defend this senseless occupation.
you're using your own personal opinion to paint with a very, very broad brush. collateral damage happens. it's happened in every war and conflict
and fight since the dawn of civilization. it's nothing new. is it sad? absolutely it is. won't even begin to debate that. but you're trying to
paint NATO out to be the baddest guys on the block because something happened that the Afghan tribes have been inflicting on each other for thousands
of years without batting an eyelash. the only difference is the tools that are used.
You accuse me of painting the situation with a very broad brush but in reality all I have done is provide some very obvious factual observations. I
never denied collateral damage happens, but this is not a noble conquest we are taking part in and as I have repeatedly said there is no way to
justify any of our actions while we are on Afghan soil. We are the invaders and there is no excuse for any deaths whatsoever. You call it collateral
damage, I call it murder. Just because I do not agree with you does not mean I am wrong, have you ever took the time consider the fact that it is YOU
who is wrong when it comes to your perspective and opinions on this matter?
The fact that Afghan tribes have been fighting for thousands of years has absolutely NOTHING to do with the incident in the OP or the actual
occupation. I consider this comment of yours to be a deflection tactic, there have been several in this thread and we are only on page two.
As for your opinion of me for what I said about my brother, I really don't care what you think of me but I will correct you nonetheless.
You incorrectly portrayed what I said, whether it was on purpose or not I will never know. You said I said he deserved it.
My exact words were:
"Please keep in mind I have a family member who was wounded over there by an IED and I'm sad to say it, but he had it coming for being there."
That is not saying he deserved it, it's just saying that he put himself in that position knowing he was invading a foreign land, it's not rocket
science. Everyone is responsible for their own actions, he chose to be there. He could have said no.
The day before he deployed I called him on the phone and wished him the best of luck and told him to stay safe, for you to imply that I wished this
upon him is just ridiculous and downright ignorant.
Go ahead and judge all my posts for now one due to that one comment since you now think you know everything about me when in fact you are so incorrect
about me and my beliefs that it would be comical if it wasn't so petty of you to use this logic that you have put forth.
Thank you for showcasing your ignorance, thankfully I will not judge all your posts from now on due to this one interaction as I am not that type of
person. But you seem to have me all figured out so continue painting me with that broad brush you previously mentioned due to your incorrect
interpretation of what I posted.