Taliban flee battle using children as shields: NATO

Status
Not open for further replies.
Buffalo Roam said:
Nickelodeon, I am not blaming the wedding part, but I am showing you that the Taliban could have been involved in staging the incident, I have been there, I have had the enemy set up a position to stage a attack so as to, when we returned fire, innocent civilians were in the line of fire, and it still comes down to the fact that in the dark of night to identify a point on the ground were the fire was received from, it has to be sustained and be using tracers to adjust fire on the target, if it was of short duration such as firing off a clip of ammo it would be very hard to identify were the origin of the fire was coming from, a AK empties a clip at full auto in 2 seconds, so can you identify in 2 second were a gun is firing from, from a moving helicopter, and remember you also have the sound of the engines, and the rotor blades, and tail rotor, you are wearing a close fitting helmet to protect your hearing from the noise level in the helicopter, and have radio chatter from the radio net, so in a few second of party firing would your be able to identify were ground fir was coming from if tracers, and sustained fire was not present?
Click to expand...


Apparently all that advanced equipment does is increase the level of stupidity.
 
SamCDKey:

And based entirely on the word of NATO troops who are killing civilians and refusing to acknowledge the fact. Blaming the enemy is hardly a new war tactic.
Click to expand...

So now you accuse NATO forces of killing children to avoid placing the blame on the Taliban?

What, do you think the Taliban are so morally blameless they would not do as is reported? That the hatred of the world against their regime was somehow unfounded? That they are the civilized people here?

Even such sources as the BBC and others associate the Taliban with horrible acts. Why are you unwilling to do the same?

At this point, I think it is completely and utterly demonstrated that you support the Taliban and Islamic terror as a whole. I fail to see how you can further consider yourself to not do as such. You litterally even refuse now to accept the Taliban as committing an atrocity.

Nickelodeon:

There can be mistakes. Such is war.
 
Prince_James said:
SamCDKey:



So now you accuse NATO forces of killing children to avoid placing the blame on the Taliban?

What, do you think the Taliban are so morally blameless they would not do as is reported? That the hatred of the world against their regime was somehow unfounded? That they are the civilized people here?

Even such sources as the BBC and others associate the Taliban with horrible acts. Why are you unwilling to do the same?

At this point, I think it is completely and utterly demonstrated that you support the Taliban and Islamic terror as a whole. I fail to see how you can further consider yourself to not do as such. You litterally even refuse now to accept the Taliban as committing an atrocity.
Click to expand...


No I just don't trust the NATO propaganda. The Taliban are lowlifes, one has only to see what they have done to Afghanistan.
 
samcdkey

Apparently all that advanced equipment does is increase the level of stupidity.
Click to expand...

What does the level of technology have to do with what happened? all advanced equipment has limits to it's usefulness, and the equipment in use on the helicopter would support the fact that they were under a period of sustained fire for them to be aware that they were receiving ground fire, and have the ability to identify were the fire was coming from, or do you know more about receiving ground fire than I do?
 
Buffalo Roam said:
samcdkey



What does the level of technology have to do with what happened? all advanced equipment has limits to it's usefulness, and the equipment in use on the helicopter would support the fact that they were under a period of sustained fire for them to be aware that they were receiving ground fire, and have the ability to identify were the fire was coming from, of do you know more about receiving ground fire than I do?
Click to expand...

Lets just shoot anything that moves. Statistically, some of them HAVE to be terrorists. The rest are just collateral damages.
 
samcdkey, were did I even intimate such actions? were has that policy ever been forwarded by any NATO or U.S. policy maker, the only people who seem to have the policy of kill them all let Allah sort them out is the Taliban, al Queda, and the rest of the terrorist of the Moslem religion, and you .
 
SamCDKey:

What about the reports from the world media on the subject? Why not trust that? It isn't simply "NATO Propaganda".

What about the same sort of information you get that is anti-American?
 
Nickelodeon:

The difference is in the purposeful nature of the action v. the unintended action.

Consider the difference between brutally killing someone personally and accidentally killing them by hitting a patch of ice on the road.
 
Prince_James said:
The difference is in the purposeful nature of the action v. the unintended action.
Click to expand...

If you kill 3000 innocent civilians there is no diference to the victims. Whats worse, you go on to "accidently" kill more in Iraq. Killing civilians kind of defeats the idea of winning the war on terrorism.
 
Nickelodeon, killing civilians is a part of war, it is the nature of the beast, if killing civilians was our objective, carpet bombing would be the way to go, and as a aside how many of those civilians killed were killed by the terrorist? does anybody post the number of death of civilians killed by the terrorist, or do they blame all deaths on the NATO and Coalition forces, to listen to you and sam it is only the actions of the allies that is killing civilians, how about the actions of the Taliban and the Terrorist?
 
Buffalo Roam said:
how about the actions of the Taliban and the Terrorist?
Click to expand...
Are you not supposed to be diferrent? Are they not supposed to be devoid of morals? Are you not fighting for "civilization"? If the Taliban kill civilians, it OK for you to do it too? In other words you ARE no different tho them.
 
Dear Buffalo,

Thank you for youir feedback on these matters.

Please could you answer the following questions:

1) Is the invasion/occupation of Iraq part of the war on terror? and how/why
2) what has it acheived?
The same applies to afghanistan for the above questions
3) would the imminent attack on iran be part of the war on terror?
4) and what would that acheive.

unfortunately i do not understand the logic the Bush adminsitration and allies are taking on this so called war on terror. if you could pls enlighten me that would be great.

Please can you also respond to my comments earlier on in this thread as i would value your opinion on it??

thanks buffalo and peace be with you

~~~~~~~~~~~
take it ez
zak
 
Nickelodeon, the fact that you can't recognize the difference is tell of you, do we plant bombs in cars and then drive then to the market square, and blow up innocents only trying to get their daily food and supplies? do we kidnap civilians and then torture then into a quivering mass of screaming humanity before we castrate them and hack off their head, in a manner that would not be acceptable in slaughtering a animal? do we use children as shields to set ambushes and then cover our retreat, I know of to many cases were G.I. have lost their lives trying to save kids in danger, can you provide and example of the terrorist doing so? The death of any individual not part of the terrorist is regrettable and to be avoided when ever possible, but not even the Geneva Convention requires you to lose your life in combat because the terrorist are operating out of civilian areas and home, or are using them for shields. In fact the G.C. places the blame for those causalities on the terrorist, as it is their actions that are responsible for the causalities.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top