NATO Kills more Children in Afghanistan

[stevewinn]

raghead is a racist comment..

who against, the Taliban, if your using this to gauge racism then I'll happily be a racist, my god acid your letting the side down, still avoiding the other question i see,.......... but i had to add thought it was pretty weak of you to play the race card, but i guess its the easy option when you cant answer the harder questions. nice tactic,

Edited September 3, 2008 by stevewinn

[TSS]

Still failing to answer questions I see Acidhead, I'll ask you again, for the third time:

Are all methods and motivations justified by an "insurgent"?

[TSS]

1. we leave them to form their own government as they choose..

Tried that, it backfired. And who do you mean when you say "they choose", who's "they" exactly, you can't mean the general population because that would be akin to democracy, which you despise. So you must mean the religious thugs who'll seize control. That's a real nice attitude you've got there.

2. we remove foreign interest in their politics.. including the World Bank and WTO.

..and in doing so remove all chances of trade and the benefits of a modern society. I'm detecting racism in your backward views of people you have no right to pigeon hole and marginalize.

3. we offer their government assistance to aid in hunger and poverty..

Which would mean foreign interest in their affairs. Make your mind up.

4. we show respect for their religion and culture..(that includes labeling them as 'rag heads')

Totally agree. Unless they enforce it on others, then we remove them.

5. we wait and defend only our own countries from foreign interests that result in harm to our populaces.

No thanks. Where did you get that little gem from, primary school politics.

[Thanato]

As stated, if there was Timmy there, using it as a place to launch operations. Then it was a Legit Military Target as is written in International Law and Conventions.

~Thanato

[Atheist God]

There are only 2 ways to win in the Middle East. This applies to most nations as well.

1: Politics and Diplomacy: Using these 2 things and showing foreign populaces your not such a bad guy goes a long way. You garner support for your causes this way.

2: Genocide: Occupation never works and always fails. You can never beat a population within it's own country(s) by military occupation. There is only one military solution that results in a total victory and that is extermination.

[stevewinn]

use the British example of the ink-spot strategy(Malaya) and we'll be fine, i guess we're already doing this in Afghanistan with a few tweaks here and there,

[acidhead]

Still failing to answer questions I see Acidhead, I'll ask you again, for the third time:

Are all methods and motivations justified by an "insurgent"?

..its their country, not yours and certainly not mine..

[Cleomenes]

..its their country, not yours and certainly not mine..

ANSWER FAIL

[InHuman]

.. then why don't YOU, SteveWinn and other christian extremists join the FIGHT?

*singsong* still wonderin' what ja ment by dat *singsong*

[InHuman]

No way am i going to respect the Taliban, and will use the term 'rag heads' if i want to refer to terry has such....

Altho I agree with you on most of the issues regarding this conflict I just gotta add that I was a lil uncomfortable with the "rag head" remark.. its not you, its just that for so long I've heard it used by the "wrong people".. the same ones who would call arabs sand ******* and such...

[Sag!ttarius]

I'd say, even if that won't please anyone here, carpet bomb or nuke the living crop out of Afghanistan after a complete NATO troops withdrawal. It gets both the Talibans and drug problems taken care of and could be used as a nice huge parking lot in a few hundred years, after radiation has subsidized. The CIA might not like loosing control of all that Opium market, but what the heck.

[MasterPo]

How do you fight someone who hides behind children? An enemy that straps bombs to mentally ill women? What kind of monsters does this world house?

After Desert Storm captured Iraqi officers told the U.S. military Saddam had considered amassing volunteers of the more fundimentalist elements of Irqai woman and children to talk infront of the Iraqi tanks knowing that American soldiers would hesitate to shoot at the tanks.

[InHuman]

I'd say, even if that won't please anyone here, carpet bomb or nuke the living crop out of Afghanistan after a complete NATO troops withdrawal. It gets both the Talibans and drug problems taken care of and could be used as a nice huge parking lot in a few hundred years, after radiation has subsidized. The CIA might not like loosing control of all that Opium market, but what the heck.

Thats dumb. What about the millions of inncoent..

[danielost]

We use nicknames in war to make it easier to kill the enemy by dehumanizing them.

[Conspiracy]

#1 taliban forces have killed and used children in attacks before

#2 taliban are pathetic to use children and women

#3 osama sucks

[Moon Monkey]

..its their country, not yours and certainly not mine..

Most of the interviews I have seen with Afghan villagers have seen them describe the Taleban / 'insurgents' as foreigners. I think the fight for Afghanistan has become a rallying call for fundamentalists from arabic countries, former soviet satellites, eastern muslim nations, western nutcases etc. and an oppurtunity for them to fight the infidels in a country where western troop numbers are waaaay too low, giving them half a fighting chance.

As for the people comparing accidental NATO killing of civillians with the extremists targetting them I am afraid if you cannot see the difference this thread could go on forever. When NATO troops start shooting civillians in the head before football games in the national stadium for not listening to Britney Spears (or some such) or strapping claymores to disabled kids and sending them into busy markets on mothers day then we can talk.

[stevewinn]

Altho I agree with you on most of the issues regarding this conflict I just gotta add that I was a lil uncomfortable with the "rag head" remark.. its not you, its just that for so long I've heard it used by the "wrong people".. the same ones who would call arabs sand ******* and such...

i understand were your coming from, but i can assure you they're called alot worse names than the ones mentioned,

does anyone remember the Northern alliance in Afghanistan. the arch-nemesis of the Taliban, the ones who were fighting terry long before we got there? i bet a few people forgot about them,

[TSS]

..its their country, not yours and certainly not mine..

As you consistantly fail to answer this question i'm left with no other option to take it that you do think all motives and methods are justified, you just haven't got the kahunas to say it!

I take my previous comment back about you not being the sharpest pencil in the box, it would appear your completely lead free.

Edited September 4, 2008 by Whojamaflip

[Sag!ttarius]

Thats dumb. What about the millions of inncoent..

NOT dumb, buddy.There are only 2 courses of action in Afghanistan. Win or loose. Do something or not. There were so many "conquerors", nothing has changed for thousands of years. They were cutting each others throats thousands of years ago, nothing has changed. The Russians tried to do it and flopped, broke their teeth on the Afghan bone. NATO will fail as well. Only 2 solutions. Lets the tribes go back to pre-NATO, with all the human rights implications that have plagued the Afghan people for these thousands of years (which I'm sure you saw plastered all over the news to sell the Afghan NATO intervention...), or nuke the fock out of it. Either way you look at it, all those innocents will die. It's just a matter of quick or slow death. End of story. News networks revel in the "misery" of the Afghanis, whenever that suits the various governements involved. They couldn't care less otherwise. Let them be spineless slaves and stop showing them as the oppressed if they don't bother helping themselves, or take radical steps. Same with Zimbabwe, Sudan or Somalia. Zero international aid that only flows to the "elite" and gun manufacturers. Nothing! Erithrea or Ethiopia? Same thing. Cut international aid and bomb the living heck out of them. The Talibans don't wear uniforms. Impossible to split apart from civilians. They couldn't bother themselves with freedom prior to it, now they complain about someone saving their arses. Go figure!

[InHuman]

^^^

I thought you first post was a joke.

Was it?

Do you really understand what you said?

[supercar]

Afghan officials accuse foreign forces of killing up to 90 civilians during an Aug. 22 operation in the country's west. , a finding backed by a preliminary United Nations report.

Yeah it's bad when 90 civilians die. But it pales in comparison to the 80,000 civilians killed by Muslim insurgents and militias in Iraq.

Here's just a few of the attacks between August 2003-January 2006:

Jan. 5, 2006: A suicide blast on a busy pedestrian path near a Shiite Muslim shrine in Karbala kills 63 civilians.

Nov. 19, 2005: A suicide bomber detonates his car in a crowd of Shiite Muslim mourners north of Baghdad, killing at least 36 civilians.

Nov. 18, 2005: Near-simultaneous suicide bombings kill 74 worshippers at two Shiite mosques near the Iranian border.

Sept. 29, 2005: Three suicide attackers detonate car bombs in the mostly Shiite town of Balad, north of Baghdad, killing at least 102 civilians.

March 10, 2005: A suicide bomber blows himself up at a Shiite mosque in the northern city of Mosul, killing at least 47 civilians.

Feb. 28, 2005: A suicide car bomber targets mostly Shiite police and national guard recruits in Hillah, killing 125 civilians.

March 2, 2004: Coordinated blasts from suicide bombers, mortars and planted explosives strike Shiite shrines in Karbala and Baghdad, killing at least 181 civilians. Seventy-one are killed in Baghdad's Kazimiya district and at least 110 are killed in Karbala, according to the U.S. coalition.

Aug. 29, 2003: A car bomb explodes outside a Shiite mosque in Najaf, killing more than 85 civilians, including Shiite leader Ayatollah Mohammed Baqir al-Hakim.

Source

Wednesday, July 13, 2005:

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- A suicide bomber blew up a vehicle Wednesday near a U.S. military convoy and a large group of Iraqi children in Baghdad, killing 27 people, Iraqi police and hospital officials said. Iraqi police said most of the dead were children. The attack also left 20 people wounded. The U.S. military said at least seven children and a U.S. soldier died in the attack. Three U.S. soldiers were wounded. The soldiers were handing out treats to the children when the bomb went off, police said. The attack -- which happened around 10:50 a.m. (2:50 a.m. ET) in the eastern Baghdad neighborhood of al-Jaddeda -- also set a nearby house on fire, police said. "The car bomber made a deliberate decision to attack one of our vehicles as the soldiers were engaged in a peaceful operation with Iraqi citizens," Maj. Russ Goemaere said in a statement. "The terrorist undoubtedly saw the children around the Humvee as he attacked. The complete disregard for civilian life in this attack is absolutely abhorrent."

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/07/13/...main/index.html

Edited September 9, 2008 by supercar

[Homer]

Just as so many have said, American and NATO troops do not target the innocent. The same can’t be said of those that we are targeting.

Another thing to consider is, whether we want to agree with it or not, the war on terror is a highly political war, with emotions running high on every side of the political spectrum. With so much international media set against the U.S., every ‘incident’ is going to be exploited for political gain against the U.S., and specifically against supporting the U.S.

The war in Afghanistan is a just war, despite what some say about the regions energy resources. That being said, public support for a just war can erode to the point that the government’s ability to conduct the war is hampered.

Although I don’t agree with the U.S. suppressing information about the war(provided there are no security/intelligence concerns), I can at least understand the purpose behind it. It is to prevent the public erosion for support on ‘our’ side, while limiting the spark that inspires further aggression on ‘their’ side.

My two cents

[Corp]

Personally I think one of the big problems is too many people think that Afghanistan = Iraq. Which anyone with some time and an open mind can see they're completely different. But people like having their own theories and will ignore logic to push it forward, Heck I had a professor who honestly believed that the reason we're in Afghanistan is to support the opium trade. Guy was a complete nut.

[InHuman]

Personally I think one of the big problems is too many people think that Afghanistan = Iraq. Which anyone with some time and an open mind can see they're completely different. But people like having their own theories and will ignore logic to push it forward, Heck I had a professor who honestly believed that the reason we're in Afghanistan is to support the opium trade. Guy was a complete nut.

I agree, just because one was wrong dons't mean every other conflict is also unjustified.