Explain with facts .
Are all soldiers like the Nazis?
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
Or is it just because you don't have a genuine answer? I do think for myself on most occasions, but when it comes to world affairs, im like a blonde at a physics convention 
Honestly, if you want my support, or even my agreement, please help me to better understand your premise...
And there is no equivalent to the Taliban in England, at least not as far as I know of... What would it be?
Honestly, if you want my support, or even my agreement, please help me to better understand your premise...And there is no equivalent to the Taliban in England, at least not as far as I know of... What would it be?
Or is it just because you don't have a genuine answer? I do think for myself on most occasions, but when it comes to world affairs, im like a blonde at a physics convention
And there is no equivalent to the Taliban in England, at least not as far as I know of... What would it be?
It would be the residence of former government officials [like Bush's neighborhood at present]. But even if that is hard to fathom, the name Helmand province alone should have reminded you what he is talking about, since its where the 400 acre US military base is being built and where some of the highest civilian casualties of the Afghan war have occured
Why the U.S. Mission in Afghanistan's Helmand Province is Doomed to Failure
2007 Helmand province airstrikes
A walnut?
HAahahahah that's all well and good, and yes, I get you're point, it is genuinely wrong to condone acts like this... HOWEVER, if you actually read the whole wikipedia article, it states that "Civilian deaths have infuriated Afghans. Afghan president Hamid Karzai has condemned the forces for carelessness and viewing Afghan lives as "cheap." He has also blamed the Taliban for using civilians as human shields.[5]" So there WERE legitimate military targets being struck, they just chose to use the surrounding civilians as... walls of meat. Which is worse, Americans accidentally killing civilians, or the Taliban using civilians of their own population to soak up american bullets?
Karzai is a collaborator with the occupation forces. He has no validity in Afghanistan since everyone knows he is a paid puppet of the coalition forces.
What is wrong here is that you apparently believe that a foreign military can bomb villages and call them legitimate targets.
Its the way terrorists who bomb your cities think, because apparently they are right to believe you support the bombing of their villages.
What is wrong here is that you apparently believe that a foreign military can bomb villages and call them legitimate targets.
Its the way terrorists who bomb your cities think, because apparently they are right to believe you support the bombing of their villages.
Again, you generalize too much.
It's not so much that I BELIEVE a foreign military can bomb villages, it's that it ACTUALLY PHYSICALLY CAN. I never said it was right, never said it was justified. The US has the power to do it, and they have. Simple as that. If you want to argue morality, I'M ON YOUR SIDE.
And no, I do not support it, not by a long shot. Besides generalizing, you're also really good at putting words into other people's mouths...
It's not so much that I BELIEVE a foreign military can bomb villages, it's that it ACTUALLY PHYSICALLY CAN. I never said it was right, never said it was justified. The US has the power to do it, and they have. Simple as that. If you want to argue morality, I'M ON YOUR SIDE.
And no, I do not support it, not by a long shot. Besides generalizing, you're also really good at putting words into other people's mouths...
Maybe there will be! Good thing I don't live in central London then, isn't it? I live in the most rural county in england, if the Taliban turn up at my doorstep, I'm just gonna point them east and whisper "bad people that way" in their ears.
You don't give a fuck as to whether or not I actually dislike what the occupation forces are doing, do you? You just want someone listen to you moan about how brown people are being blown up...
You don't give a fuck as to whether or not I actually dislike what the occupation forces are doing, do you? You just want someone listen to you moan about how brown people are being blown up...
No one in the US military believes that destroying villages is a legitimate strategy. The Taliban hides in certain buildings and we destroy them according to the rules of engagement when few or no civilians are known to be present. War isn't pretty, but the way we do it is a hell of a lot more targeted them Al Quida's attacks, where not a single military target was known to be present.
Source? The only thing required of our forces is to take all possible care not to kill civilians, not to never take any action that could result in civilian deaths.
Last edited:
AGAIN, you're a dolt. How can the military forces, DISPATCHED ABROAD, hide behind people thousands of miles away? I ask again, are you doing drugs? Where is the logic in your statement?
You can call anything anything. But what would that have to do with anything?
Just answer the posts and shut up idiot .
You always you, you and you .
Go after ideas not me moron .
This is crap .
The soldiers should not be there in the first place. Those are sovereign countries and the US is a tyrant .
That is false. Plenty of people in the US military think the reason we lost Vietnam was that we wimped out and quit destroying villages, the working strategy as they saw it.spider said:
Bullshit. We rocket housing compounds, weddings, all kinds of targets we know very well are full of civilians.spider said:
The Pentagon is not a military target? The WTC war and colonial financing center? The White House? The Cole?spider said:
A hell of a lot more "military" than a mob wedding of Karzai's brother's smuggling competitors.
Did you miss the announcement, just a couple of weeks ago, of McChrystal's radical theater-wide change in US tactics - to avoid civilian casualites?spider said:
Repeat: a radical change, made headlines in the papers and drew much commentary pro and con, in the former tactics - designed to reduce civilian casualties. Because the former tactics, the ones employed for the past several years, were not so designed.
i am going after you by asking about your education?
i have no idea what you are talking about.