Afghan Suicide bomber kills 10 children...'We gotta get outta this place.

reply to post by THE666OCCULT


Whats the difference between shooting someone from 50 feet and slowly cutting their throat open like a fish fillet with a box cutter or knife?

I'd say the difference comes down to bad action/ill intent vs. outright evil and black hearted. (If not seriously, mentally ill on the one who could and would kill so personally and so directly)

In this case.... Our little psychopath in Kabul didn't simply wear the gore and blood of his victims as others of his ilk have in the past. He insured his victims wore HIS blood and gore.

Those who can't see a difference and a deep fundamental one at that, worry me.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Reminds me of all the beheadings that go on in the Middle East, and all the stoning, and the child abuse, and the abuse of women, sanctioned by religion and the government...

But they aren't "barbarians" and we are big, bad, evil, Americans.

I'm with you. Those who offer an impassioned argument against the ideas you are laying down and didn't respect your initial disclaimer in your OP should convert to islam and move over there.

Originally posted by stirling
I actually think they may just make more progress with less troops.....
The roll em over and tuckem in attitude with have to be replaced with vey intelligent social and military
activities.
A little more cunning and a lot less brute force will be required to keep things on some kind of track.....
zthestay behind force should be SOCOM led i think.

Negative. This would be seen a s a sign of weakness and will actually make it more difficult. History has shown that "winning hearts and minds" almost never works. We either do what we did in Nazi Germany: total war, devistate everything, and remove every single member of the old guard (look up "deNazification program postwar Germany") and rebuild the country from scratch or just go home and quit wasting lives, time, and money on something that will not work.

Originally posted by My_Reality
reply to post by lonewolf19792000

 

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by My_Reality

 

That is not a fair interpretation of events. Consider that Islam is about 620 years younger than Christianity. The religion of Jesus did not become semi peaceable until the coming of secularism.

Most people make the mistake of lumping us into christendom or catholicism. Alot of men did horrifying things in the name of Jesus, in the name of the One they never knew to begin with and he said it would happen. The Way is not a path of destruction, robbery and murder. The royal law is to treat others the way you want them to treat you, as was given by Jesus Christ when he came to fulfill the Law and the Prophets. Secularism isn't a new thing, the godless have been around for millenia and they have done horrifying things in their own right without the fear of having Divine Retribution hanging over them.

I'm confused. There were two major religions in the Mediterranean Basin since the Edict of Milan. Yes, I give you the fact that you did not mention a specific religion on your part in the post I replied to. Perhaps it was hasty of me to launch into the speech I delivered. In my defense, I interpreted a strong bias for the actions of those who follow the Old/New Testament. Even so, the comments you made regarding Islam seemed to have a decidedly Christian origin.

Other religious leaders that came long before Jesus taught to regard life as sacred. This is my point: I have stated that your earlier comments toward Islam disregarded the history of Christianity, and other religions as well, which had little to do with the recent bombings. That is why I am confused with your reply. Why is Islam the monster of religions? All religions have given us examples of fanatical extremism.

Again, I contend that this bombing had little to do with religion. Primarily, it involved two factions at war with one another. Factions at war perform despicable actions to further their goals with the intent of "winning" the war. As I said in my original post this tragic event is asymmetrical war at its best(or worst, from my point of view). Now that I have typed this reply out I am simply confused as to what religion has to do with this act of war.

Simply because Christianity has moved on from the middle ages whilst Islam seems to be stuck in the middle ages?

Originally posted by THE666OCCULT
reply to post by unphased

 

What is the difference between burying a roadside bomb and hiding on a cliff and blowing it up with a cell phone and using UAV's (they aren't drones) to target known insurgents? In my experience, which is far closer to the subject matter than yourself, I can find no distinction.

huh...? we're saying the same thing...

I'm not saying "america sucks" even though OP is tryna spin it that way. I'm saying if Americans wanna stand up to what they feel is inhumane, insufferable warfare tactics, we should start at home.

reply to post by unphased

Your personal and direct insults are getting to be too much. Please either stick to the topic of the thread or take your leave of it, One of the two, and I really do not care anymore, which one. However...T&C here isn't a mysterious thing and I've bent over BACKWARD trying to be nice, not make a staff issue of this and ask, repeatedly, that you take your toxic approach elsewhere. Your own thread? Someone else's? Again..I don't care.

Please stop crapping all over my thread and knock off the personal stuff. It;s not just myself you've directed it to but it has crossed the line, IMO, more than once now. I DO refer to some as America Haters..and that's a broad thing. Calling me childish? Is not...and it's not the first little snipe attack you've made. Please, again, stop.

reply to post by My_Reality

Why is Islam the monster of religions? All religions have given us examples of fanatical extremism.

Other religions don't have the goal of conquering the world and establishing world-wide Sharia law, they do and if/when they establish that world wide Caliphate (Islamic version of the Vatican), Sharia will eventually be the law of the land, even if you're not a muslim you will obey or you will pay the price, which may be your life or your hands and feet. Other religions are not out to conquer the world. Just take a look at europe, they migrate in and start breeding out the indigenous populations and now you start seeing they have 40-50% of the general population in nations that allow them to imigrate and what happens when you piss them off by insulting Muhammad or burning a Quran? They riot and murder people who didn't even have anything to do with it and these are people who are practicing muslims that obey the Quran as it is given them by their Imams.

Take a look at what happened last fall at Halloween in new england in the N.E. United States. 2 Atheists decided to play dress up, one dresses up as zombie Jesus, another dresses up as zombie Muhammad. The one who dressed up as zombie Muhammad got his ass whooped, and when he tried to persue legal action against the muslim who attacked him, the attending judge presiding over the case whom was also muslim said "in muslim lands you would be killed" to the atheist, and then he threw the case out. So the muslim got a get out of jail free card and the atheist was denied justice in what should have been a nonbiased court of American law. So in essence what we're seeing is the day and age where it will be illegal to offend someone, which will infringe upon free speech rights and freedoms of expression for nonmuslim which works just fine under Sharia, but whereas no one is going to kick your ass for insulting Jesus or Buddha, they will kick your ass for insulting Muhammad.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000


The surely if we are to war against Islam attacking Afghanistan still makes no sense.

You would want to attack places like saudi Arabia and Iran who are centers of Islam not Afghanistan which is the arse end of nowhere.

reply to post by My_Reality

Why is Islam the monster of religions? All religions have given us examples of fanatical extremism.

Again, I contend that this bombing had little to do with religion. Primarily, it involved two factions at war with one another. Factions at war perform despicable actions to further their goals with the intent of "winning" the war. As I said in my original post this tragic event is asymmetrical war at its best(or worst, from my point of view). Now that I have typed this reply out I am simply confused as to what religion has to do with this act of war.

Somebody has always been at war over ideology. So who is that somebody? Whoever he is, there are two main themes that attend all his wars ~ the "lets you and him fight" mentality and war by deception. Somebody's wars are all based on propaganda and false flag operations to incite aggression against and between various factions within a nation. Always.

And we need to remember, there are factions in the US that have been used to divide and conquer us, the civil war is the only one that wasn't accomplished bloodlessly, so far, but we are not exempt from the potential for another bloody war on our own soil for somebody's benefit and profit, nor are we protected from that somebody's wish to create and inflame internal chaos here at home.

Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”

www.globalresearch.ca...
whatreallyhappened.wikia.com...
www.veteranstoday.com...

Everyone seems to forget that Afghanistan agreed to turn Bin Laden over to the US for trial IF they could provide evidence that he was involved and Bush's response was that "we don't need no stinking evidence".

I could go on with citations all day long but once the mind seed of revenge has been planted it grows like kudzu and smothers everything else until hatred is all that's left. We will never be free and happy as long as we allow that somebody to rule our hearts and minds. He doesn't give two hoots about our children. Not one shred more than he does about a dead Afghan child. He doesn't give two hoots about how "god" is worshipped, money is his god and religion is his favorite tool for getting more god in his pocket.

/rant

Originally posted by unphased

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by Skjord

 

I haven't replied to a few on this thread because I'm not getting into the gutter on this topic. I don't condone, by ANY MEANS, the mistreatment or killing of civilians by US forces. I never have. I never will and I've been vocal about speaking out against it when it's shown to have happened (not rumored) in the past.

People seem to assume that because I think the terrorist scumbags in Afghanistan are pretty much a step below child molesters, that I somehow SUPPORT atrocious behavior by OUR side. That's absurd and flat wrong. I've never said or suggested anything of the sort. In fact, I've taken quite the opposite position when proof has been present for misconduct by US forces. We have a nice place in Kansas for them to live out their days with others of their kind, too.

That being said....I also don't see the need to give big hugs or support to ruthless killers among the Taliban or Al Qaeda terrorists just because we do have criminals in uniform on our side. The *HUGE* difference is....their side calls it fair and reasonable tactics to fight with and they have for over 20 years. LONG before we got there. Clear back into the days of the Soviet Occupation.

Some absolutely CANNOT see the difference between U.S. Forces and others...or even acknowledge that there MAY be any difference at all. Well, for those who may have missed this little detail..... I come from a family with strong military tradition. United States Military tradition. My Brother in Law is a former Marine with time in both wars over there and one of my 1st cousins still serves over there, somewhere, when he's called back to deploy.

So, I really have no tolerance..of any kind..for that moral relativism between an army that prosecutes murders and one that celebrates them as heros. There is no comparison to the two sides, even if the monsters that exist on both (and to some degree in ALL armies, in ALL wars) do horrible things. Fine...... PROSECUTE THEM. Don't even start painting the WHOLE MILITARY with the brush of the madmen the war produces at times. Especially not when the Vets I personally know would shoot them, PERSONALLY, if they witnessed some of this happening. US Soldier or not.

Ok...sooo maybe you're having a hard time understanding this.. Drone bombs, and the "collateral damage" attatched to them, constitute war crimes, in the methods the US uses them. The US doesn't prosecute murderers, they prosecute the big ones that they can't cover up.

Guess what: in a logical world, if I'm going up against an enemy, and I throw a grenade, and kill the guy, AND his family, I SHOULD be brought up on murder charges...

There is NO moral high ground here. In the end, CHILDREN DIE, WOMEN DIE, INNOCENTS DIE, so no, there is no difference between the US military and taliban fighters..

Let's go back in time to where a group of REAL MEN met off in the distance and fought the war.. Now the war is taken to civilians and you have the damn nerve to claim that ANYONE has a moral high ground?!?!?

The US and UK forces have just crossed the Rhine river and a Nazi machinegun nest is set up in a hospital. US and UK forces fire back at the nest and civilians die as a result vs a Nazi death squad executing civilians as the US and UK forces roll up on their camp. There is indeed a difference both morally and legally. Methinks you do not understand what constitutes a war crime.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


I agree with Unphased.

This is a classic example of where when the Afghans commit atrocities we react with outrage and fury, but when Americans do the same the excuses roll out and it becomes just an inconsequential footnote.

It doesn't matter who's doing the killing or dying. It's all wrong. I personally find it quite crass that you tried to somehow find moral distinction between suicide bombers and U.S. drone strikes. As if death by drone strike is infinitely more preferable and honorable.

Although I can appreciate that you don't like hearing such opposing view points, it's not realistic to just put one or two sentences in your OP and expect to just silence the debate.

Also I don't believe it's right to just label people as "evil" whether it be the suicide bombers or the U.S. airmen piloting drones.

Also I hope you realise that I'm not having a go at you personally, as I can see you've spent time making this thread. But it's important to have a discussion about this.

“What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?” – Gandhi

Originally posted by Kram09
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

I agree with Unphased.

This is a classic example of where when the Afghans commit atrocities we react with outrage and fury, but when Americans do the same the excuses roll out and it becomes just an inconsequential footnote.

It doesn't matter who's doing the killing or dying. It's all wrong. I personally find it quite crass that you tried to somehow find moral distinction between suicide bombers and U.S. drone strikes. As if death by drone strike is infinitely more preferable and honorable.

Although I can appreciate that you don't like hearing such opposing view points, it's not realistic to just put one or two sentences in your OP and expect to just silence the debate.

Also I don't believe it's right to just label people as "evil" whether it be the suicide bombers or the U.S. airmen piloting drones.

Also I hope you realise that I'm not having a go at you personally, as I can see you've spent time making this thread. But it's important to have a discussion about this.

“What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?” – Gandhi

Interesting. So the deaths of civilians in Nazi concentration camps were the moral and legal equivalent of the deaths of civilians in the bombing of Berlin?

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by unphased

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by Skjord

 

I haven't replied to a few on this thread because I'm not getting into the gutter on this topic. I don't condone, by ANY MEANS, the mistreatment or killing of civilians by US forces. I never have. I never will and I've been vocal about speaking out against it when it's shown to have happened (not rumored) in the past.

People seem to assume that because I think the terrorist scumbags in Afghanistan are pretty much a step below child molesters, that I somehow SUPPORT atrocious behavior by OUR side. That's absurd and flat wrong. I've never said or suggested anything of the sort. In fact, I've taken quite the opposite position when proof has been present for misconduct by US forces. We have a nice place in Kansas for them to live out their days with others of their kind, too.

That being said....I also don't see the need to give big hugs or support to ruthless killers among the Taliban or Al Qaeda terrorists just because we do have criminals in uniform on our side. The *HUGE* difference is....their side calls it fair and reasonable tactics to fight with and they have for over 20 years. LONG before we got there. Clear back into the days of the Soviet Occupation.

Some absolutely CANNOT see the difference between U.S. Forces and others...or even acknowledge that there MAY be any difference at all. Well, for those who may have missed this little detail..... I come from a family with strong military tradition. United States Military tradition. My Brother in Law is a former Marine with time in both wars over there and one of my 1st cousins still serves over there, somewhere, when he's called back to deploy.

So, I really have no tolerance..of any kind..for that moral relativism between an army that prosecutes murders and one that celebrates them as heros. There is no comparison to the two sides, even if the monsters that exist on both (and to some degree in ALL armies, in ALL wars) do horrible things. Fine...... PROSECUTE THEM. Don't even start painting the WHOLE MILITARY with the brush of the madmen the war produces at times. Especially not when the Vets I personally know would shoot them, PERSONALLY, if they witnessed some of this happening. US Soldier or not.

Ok...sooo maybe you're having a hard time understanding this.. Drone bombs, and the "collateral damage" attatched to them, constitute war crimes, in the methods the US uses them. The US doesn't prosecute murderers, they prosecute the big ones that they can't cover up.

Guess what: in a logical world, if I'm going up against an enemy, and I throw a grenade, and kill the guy, AND his family, I SHOULD be brought up on murder charges...

There is NO moral high ground here. In the end, CHILDREN DIE, WOMEN DIE, INNOCENTS DIE, so no, there is no difference between the US military and taliban fighters..

Let's go back in time to where a group of REAL MEN met off in the distance and fought the war.. Now the war is taken to civilians and you have the damn nerve to claim that ANYONE has a moral high ground?!?!?

The US and UK forces have just crossed the Rhine river and a Nazi machinegun nest is set up in a hospital. US and UK forces fire back at the nest and civilians die as a result vs a Nazi death squad executing civilians as the US and UK forces roll up on their camp. There is indeed a difference both morally and legally. Methinks you do not understand what constitutes a war crime.

Why are you talking about Nazi's when I'm talking about drone bombing neighborhoods...?

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by Kram09
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

I agree with Unphased.

This is a classic example of where when the Afghans commit atrocities we react with outrage and fury, but when Americans do the same the excuses roll out and it becomes just an inconsequential footnote.

It doesn't matter who's doing the killing or dying. It's all wrong. I personally find it quite crass that you tried to somehow find moral distinction between suicide bombers and U.S. drone strikes. As if death by drone strike is infinitely more preferable and honorable.

Although I can appreciate that you don't like hearing such opposing view points, it's not realistic to just put one or two sentences in your OP and expect to just silence the debate.

Also I don't believe it's right to just label people as "evil" whether it be the suicide bombers or the U.S. airmen piloting drones.

Also I hope you realise that I'm not having a go at you personally, as I can see you've spent time making this thread. But it's important to have a discussion about this.

“What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?” – Gandhi

Interesting. So the deaths of civilians in Nazi concentration camps were the moral and legal equivalent of the deaths of civilians in the bombing of Berlin?

What was the END RESULT...? Dead innocent people....

reply to post by NavyDoc

Interesting. So the deaths of civilians in Nazi concentration camps were the moral and legal equivalent of the deaths of civilians in the bombing of Berlin?

What on earth are you blathering on about?

reply to post by hounddoghowlie


Not.
Our.
Problem.

reply to post by Kram09


I personally find it crass that we can't look at either side, in isolation of the other, for the right or wrong of the deeds they do..on their own..and in their own decisions and tactics. These are, after all, two distinctly different and separate fighting organizations/groups, as it were for each side. In the case of the Afghani Taliban? It's a side that learned and perfected this style of fighting since the earliest days of their creation.

Of course though, we can I suppose, huh? When it's Americans doing something atrocious, I rarely hear much mention about how the other side does the same or worse. It's a focus like a laser on the American misconduct. That's fair too, when it's not applied as a real obvious double standard.

Now you may or may not have seen my posting in the past on rapes, murders and other war crimes/atrocities committed by Americans in combat. If you haven't, fair enough there too...You couldn't know that I'm as or more vicious about my own countrymen doing evil as I am toward the enemy.

It's that endless double standard I find offensive and in strong evidence here. When others commit evil? Well, there are a thousand ways to find reasons, justifications or rationalizations. Whatever the end result for logic, the end conclusion seems to be 'it shouldn't matter THAT much'. Yet, when Americans do something radically out of line? Oh, well, no rationalization there. We're all just evil bastards and we actually enjoy it or something, to hear is often described in broad terms.

That is what I'd call crass. That's just me tho. Hypocrisy always pisses me off.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

Hypocrisy always pisses me off.

Me too. Particularly American hypocrisy.

Not sure what your reply was on about to be honest.

A bit rambling...

Originally posted by unphased

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by unphased

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by Skjord

 

I haven't replied to a few on this thread because I'm not getting into the gutter on this topic. I don't condone, by ANY MEANS, the mistreatment or killing of civilians by US forces. I never have. I never will and I've been vocal about speaking out against it when it's shown to have happened (not rumored) in the past.

People seem to assume that because I think the terrorist scumbags in Afghanistan are pretty much a step below child molesters, that I somehow SUPPORT atrocious behavior by OUR side. That's absurd and flat wrong. I've never said or suggested anything of the sort. In fact, I've taken quite the opposite position when proof has been present for misconduct by US forces. We have a nice place in Kansas for them to live out their days with others of their kind, too.

That being said....I also don't see the need to give big hugs or support to ruthless killers among the Taliban or Al Qaeda terrorists just because we do have criminals in uniform on our side. The *HUGE* difference is....their side calls it fair and reasonable tactics to fight with and they have for over 20 years. LONG before we got there. Clear back into the days of the Soviet Occupation.

Some absolutely CANNOT see the difference between U.S. Forces and others...or even acknowledge that there MAY be any difference at all. Well, for those who may have missed this little detail..... I come from a family with strong military tradition. United States Military tradition. My Brother in Law is a former Marine with time in both wars over there and one of my 1st cousins still serves over there, somewhere, when he's called back to deploy.

So, I really have no tolerance..of any kind..for that moral relativism between an army that prosecutes murders and one that celebrates them as heros. There is no comparison to the two sides, even if the monsters that exist on both (and to some degree in ALL armies, in ALL wars) do horrible things. Fine...... PROSECUTE THEM. Don't even start painting the WHOLE MILITARY with the brush of the madmen the war produces at times. Especially not when the Vets I personally know would shoot them, PERSONALLY, if they witnessed some of this happening. US Soldier or not.

Ok...sooo maybe you're having a hard time understanding this.. Drone bombs, and the "collateral damage" attatched to them, constitute war crimes, in the methods the US uses them. The US doesn't prosecute murderers, they prosecute the big ones that they can't cover up.

Guess what: in a logical world, if I'm going up against an enemy, and I throw a grenade, and kill the guy, AND his family, I SHOULD be brought up on murder charges...

There is NO moral high ground here. In the end, CHILDREN DIE, WOMEN DIE, INNOCENTS DIE, so no, there is no difference between the US military and taliban fighters..

Let's go back in time to where a group of REAL MEN met off in the distance and fought the war.. Now the war is taken to civilians and you have the damn nerve to claim that ANYONE has a moral high ground?!?!?

The US and UK forces have just crossed the Rhine river and a Nazi machinegun nest is set up in a hospital. US and UK forces fire back at the nest and civilians die as a result vs a Nazi death squad executing civilians as the US and UK forces roll up on their camp. There is indeed a difference both morally and legally. Methinks you do not understand what constitutes a war crime.

Why are you talking about Nazi's when I'm talking about drone bombing neighborhoods...?

Because, I'm trying to point out the underlying principles of the rules of war and what constitutes a true war crime vs an imagined one. Most of the people I hear talking about US "war crimes" really don't know what constitutes true war crimes.

Sometimes collateral damage happens. The era of the bad guys standing across open fields from teh good guys are long over and have been gone since before WWI. As long as the bad guys hide behind civilians and use them as shields, there will be, regrettebly, civilian casualties. The ROE of our military in both theaters is very, very strict and we do everything we can to avoid civilian casualties.

Originally posted by Kram09
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

Interesting. So the deaths of civilians in Nazi concentration camps were the moral and legal equivalent of the deaths of civilians in the bombing of Berlin?

What on earth are you blathering on about?

Using a bit of logic. If you say that it does not matter the circumstances and all civilian casualties are immoral war crimes then you are putting the same legal and moral impetus on the above situation. Once you expand your thought processes, and think outside the simple contrived situation, you become to realize that the absolutist stance does not hold logical merit.