[quote]Gkhan wrote:
If they did not want us there, they should have given us Bin Laden when we asked for him.[/quote]
So because the Talibans did not give Bin Laden to the US, it justifies murdering Afghan civilians. I hope that’s not what you are thinking. [/quote]
No, It does not justify anything.
The Taliban were murdering their own citizens before we ever showed up. Perhaps we should just leave and let the Afghan people kill their own civillians.
[/quote]
You could stop your own government from murdering American civilians.
I think that would be an excellent start before you start killing other people for their own good.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Joe, you do believe the US should try to kill Bin Laden and his pals, don’t you?[/quote]
I have no respect for al-qaeda. I have no problem with the US trying to stop or destroy al-qaeda. It’s more about the way of doing things that I don’t agree. On the point of killing them, shouldn’t everyone get a fair trial? You can’t just accuse someone of being a terrorist and then kill him. Now i am not saying Bin laden is not a terrorist. [/quote]
I mean, you don’t exactly show up with an arrest warrant for these guys…
[/quote]
lolll, well fighting terrorism is no simple thing. May be not a warrant but at least have some proof and give them a trial. It’s easy to go in Afghanistan to kill people but what if some suspected member of al-qaeda is hiding in Canada. You can’t just send the army or blow his house. You can’t just go in every single country you want and kill people. What if said SUSPECTED terrorist is a US citizen. The constitution says that every citizen should have a fair trial. [/quote]
So what.
The Obama administration reserves the right to kill anyone, anywhere.
First of all, biased news articles online aren’t going to report the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. There is no evidence that American soldiers have intentionally been ordered to kill Afghan civilians. It’s war, people. Civilians WILL die. It happens. You cannot prevent it. There are sacrifices that must be made for the greater good.
Put terrorists on trial before we kill them? Give me a break. It’s generally pretty obvious who the perpetrators are. If you see a group of dudes with RPGs and AKs, chances are they’re Taliban. You can’t go up to them and ask if they’d like a trial - they will kill you. Sorry, obviously most of you have never been in a war zone and have spent your entire life safe and happy, but it just doesn’t work that way. Most of the time, our troops are ambushed by them, not the other way around.
Why don’t you go over there as I and some of the other members of the forum have before you claim that we’re killing civilians and all of this other bullshit? Because right now, you really have 0 room to speak, and 0 reliable information.
[quote]joebassin wrote:
As you suggest strenghtening the Tribal leaders and creating infrastructure is a good idea. But again killing civilians just make the local population hate the US soldier. This cause some of them to take the side of the Talibans. And the situation just get worst from there. [/quote]
You could stop your own government from murdering American civilians.
I think that would be an excellent start before you start killing other people for their own good.
[/quote]
Yes, what a problem. Their just shooting crowds on the streets over here.
[/quote]
Poppycock, that is not what the Taliban do.
They kill people who defy their authority as a warning to others → Waco, Ruby ridge.
They force other people to live by their rules because they really know what is best for them, in their case religious dogma, in the case of the US puritan fantasies of of an untainted body, i.e the war on drugs.
One could also argue that the need for religious purity stems from the same puerile narcissism that stands behind the war on drugs so these impulses are really one and the same.
I.e. teh Taliban behave like any other government.
[quote]randallh1989 wrote:
First of all, biased news articles online aren’t going to report the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. There is no evidence that American soldiers have intentionally been ordered to kill Afghan civilians. It’s war, people. Civilians WILL die. It happens. You cannot prevent it. There are sacrifices that must be made for the greater good.
Put terrorists on trial before we kill them? Give me a break. It’s generally pretty obvious who the perpetrators are. If you see a group of dudes with RPGs and AKs, chances are they’re Taliban. You can’t go up to them and ask if they’d like a trial - they will kill you. Sorry, obviously most of you have never been in a war zone and have spent your entire life safe and happy, but it just doesn’t work that way. Most of the time, our troops are ambushed by them, not the other way around.
Why don’t you go over there as I and some of the other members of the forum have before you claim that we’re killing civilians and all of this other bullshit? Because right now, you really have 0 room to speak, and 0 reliable information.
Thanks.[/quote]
I was talking about suspected terrorist like people that are target of US drone attack and often ends up being civilian not about Talibans. Concerning biased articles that is you opinion. Aljazeera for example is a neutral source of information they always tell both side of the stories. Go read them and make your own opinion before telling they are biased. And I know that American soldiers don’t go around with the sole purpose of killing civilians.
[/quote]
Poppycock, that is not what the Taliban do.
They kill people who defy their authority as a warning to others → Waco, Ruby ridge.
They force other people to live by their rules because they really know what is best for them, in their case religious dogma, in the case of the US puritan fantasies of of an untainted body, i.e the war on drugs.
One could also argue that the need for religious purity stems from the same puerile narcissism that stands behind the war on drugs so these impulses are really one and the same.
I.e. teh Taliban behave like any other government.[/quote]
Like the way Germany handled the Red Army Faction?
By your reasoning you can say ANY government does this. Show me a Communist form of government where the people were sitting around in communes with flowers in their hair singing about love, peace and happiness.
Or any government for that matter. Or any religion.
[quote]randallh1989 wrote:
First of all, biased news articles online aren’t going to report the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. There is no evidence that American soldiers have intentionally been ordered to kill Afghan civilians. It’s war, people. Civilians WILL die. It happens. You cannot prevent it. There are sacrifices that must be made for the greater good.
Put terrorists on trial before we kill them? Give me a break. It’s generally pretty obvious who the perpetrators are. If you see a group of dudes with RPGs and AKs, chances are they’re Taliban. You can’t go up to them and ask if they’d like a trial - they will kill you. Sorry, obviously most of you have never been in a war zone and have spent your entire life safe and happy, but it just doesn’t work that way. Most of the time, our troops are ambushed by them, not the other way around.
Why don’t you go over there as I and some of the other members of the forum have before you claim that we’re killing civilians and all of this other bullshit? Because right now, you really have 0 room to speak, and 0 reliable information.
Thanks.[/quote]
I was talking about suspected terrorist like people that are target of US drone attack and often ends up being civilian not about Talibans. Concerning biased articles that is you opinion. Aljazeera for example is a neutral source of information they always tell both side of the stories. Go read them and make your own opinion before telling they are biased. And I know that American soldiers don’t go around with the sole purpose of killing civilians.[/quote]
Those drone attacks serve the same purpose as an infantry engagement - to destroy the enemy. The method or weapons system used is unimportant. You cannot say that the infantry engagement is more justifiable, because you can’t always wait for the enemy to shoot at you first. This would mean more dead Americans which is the last thing we want. Unfortunately, collateral damage and civilian deaths is a part of war. Mistaken identity of combatants is another. Sometimes it is hard to tell who is an enemy and who is a civilian because they do not wear uniforms, travel in formations, etc.
So, either we become SUPER careful at who we engage and thus lose our edge, let the enemy get the drop on us and have the first crack at killing us, or we be proactive, accept the fact that humans make errors but also accept the fact that this is a neccessary part of warfighting.
[quote]randallh1989 wrote:
First of all, biased news articles online aren’t going to report the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. There is no evidence that American soldiers have intentionally been ordered to kill Afghan civilians. It’s war, people. Civilians WILL die. It happens. You cannot prevent it. There are sacrifices that must be made for the greater good.
Put terrorists on trial before we kill them? Give me a break. It’s generally pretty obvious who the perpetrators are. If you see a group of dudes with RPGs and AKs, chances are they’re Taliban. You can’t go up to them and ask if they’d like a trial - they will kill you. Sorry, obviously most of you have never been in a war zone and have spent your entire life safe and happy, but it just doesn’t work that way. Most of the time, our troops are ambushed by them, not the other way around.
Why don’t you go over there as I and some of the other members of the forum have before you claim that we’re killing civilians and all of this other bullshit? Because right now, you really have 0 room to speak, and 0 reliable information.
Thanks.[/quote]
I was talking about suspected terrorist like people that are target of US drone attack and often ends up being civilian not about Talibans. Concerning biased articles that is you opinion. Aljazeera for example is a neutral source of information they always tell both side of the stories. Go read them and make your own opinion before telling they are biased. And I know that American soldiers don’t go around with the sole purpose of killing civilians.[/quote]
Those drone attacks serve the same purpose as an infantry engagement - to destroy the enemy. The method or weapons system used is unimportant. You cannot say that the infantry engagement is more justifiable, because you can’t always wait for the enemy to shoot at you first. This would mean more dead Americans which is the last thing we want. Unfortunately, collateral damage and civilian deaths is a part of war. Mistaken identity of combatants is another. Sometimes it is hard to tell who is an enemy and who is a civilian because they do not wear uniforms, travel in formations, etc.
So, either we become SUPER careful at who we engage and thus lose our edge, let the enemy get the drop on us and have the first crack at killing us, or we be proactive, accept the fact that humans make errors but also accept the fact that this is a neccessary part of warfighting.[/quote]
The problem with drone attack is that they have high rate of civilian killing and seem unreliable. See for example:
I agree that it can be hard to tell who is civilian and who is not because they don’t wear uniform. But, being too proactive cause more civilian death and more anti-american resentment.
[/quote]
Poppycock, that is not what the Taliban do.
They kill people who defy their authority as a warning to others → Waco, Ruby ridge.
They force other people to live by their rules because they really know what is best for them, in their case religious dogma, in the case of the US puritan fantasies of of an untainted body, i.e the war on drugs.
One could also argue that the need for religious purity stems from the same puerile narcissism that stands behind the war on drugs so these impulses are really one and the same.
I.e. teh Taliban behave like any other government.[/quote]
Like the way Germany handled the Red Army Faction?
By your reasoning you can say ANY government does this. Show me a Communist form of government where the people were sitting around in communes with flowers in their hair singing about love, peace and happiness.
Or any government for that matter. Or any religion.
And if this is the case, what’s the alternative? [/quote]
The alternative is to try to keep your own government in check, first and foremost and not to entrust it with more and more powers to right the wrongs of other governments.
Here’s something for the conspiracy people to ponder:
edit: now industialization could skyrocket and the ecomony could boom, yet I believe there would still be people wanting to take them back to the 14th century. In other words, good for some people, good to piss off others.