G Huxley

TimG its the oil fanatics who are the luddites. Oil was the great new technology in the 19th century!!! The 20th century saw most of its major wars based on it. Its the 21st century now. Oil is the tech of the past. The oil luddites are terrified of losing their billions just like the original luddites were terrified of losing their jobs to new sewing machines that would make them redundant.

China

It must feel very patriotic to be a conservative praying for our oil to be sent in a great flood to China regardless of the consequences on the environment.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5 The civillian casualty numbers in the Afghan conflict fully support his claims. The Soviet Union Then you better do something about the rogue nation down south.

Lets get real here bombing funerals and rescuers isn't assassinating the next Adolph Hitler. That's about the weakest justification possible for war crimes. Now Nato is making little insects with cameras inside which can be used to have missiles sent in from distant points. If this guy sewed military combatant in his underwear it would be more visible than Nato's Stealth.

If you think killing a swath of civilians is OK if you get one or two of your targets, then I don`t see much of a difference between that and the concept of terrorism. Attacking funerals and rescuers is an utterly outrageous war crime.

It further highlights what is an assymmetrical war. If traditionally cloak and dagger stealth was used for ages, I don`t see the difference between modern stealth. NATO plays god, this guy fought face to face.

Hooray, its a great day for B.C.`s pristine environment. Our greatest natural resource. http://bc.ctvnews.ca/b-c-rejects-northern-gateway-project-over-environmental-concerns-1.1305479#ixzz2UtWTXypT

Targetting funerals and and rescuers is the opposite of limiting civilian deaths. Its a murderous act of terrorism.

If the entire country is a battlefield then so are the NATO countries who use Afghanistan as a battlefield. You can't have it one way and then not the other. Targetting funerals is against international law. So is targeting rescuers specifically banned by the Geneva convention. The Taliban offered to try Bin Laden, if evidence were presented that he had been responsible for the 9/11 attacks. He was also voted down in at least one election and didn't leave, which made him a dictator. I'm saying what an Afghan refugee said. I'm just passing on the view of a local. Since its their country, that's what matters in the end. The Afghans don't like foreign invaders either, and never have. Agreed. I've read alot more about Afghanistan, but its the ancient history. The first thing you understand is that its the graveyard of all empires who tried to invade and occupy it from Alexander the Great to the Mongols and on. That's exactly the point why I was opposed to the war from the beginning, far more Afghan civilians have been killed and displaced by the war many times in fact than were ever affected by 9/11. If the consequences are far worse than 9/11 then it hasn't been a success. The exact same thing goes for Iraq.

If Nato can bomb funerals and rescuers to whine that some guy attacked military personnel in the street is laughable.

Bambino, its to some level implied, because Army Guy is promoting an invasion and occupation of an entire country based on it.

No you don't they fly at an altitude and location where they won't be seen and they aren't marked as military targets. The victims of the attack will never see them.

Well there you go, its the same thing.

Stealth, drones etc. Are way more anonymous than attacking a guy on the street. At least in the latter case its actually physically possible to fight back in the first place. As Gosthacked said whose talking about the rules of war, when NATO doesn't even declare its wars and violates them regularly?

The response for that would be through the intelligence agencies.

What about smog, arsenic from gas etc.

Bcsapper how about through the judiciary.

One can be logical and sardonic at the same time.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/10815047 Soldier to admit Afghan massacre.

Eyeball sardonically well put.

I don't follow. If a Muslim country (rather than a handful of individuals) attacked you or another country, you and others have the right to fight back against that country.

That completely ignores the reality of asymettrical warfare, geurillas are never going to line up in a field and get mowed down with big signs saying shoot me! Following that rule then NATO must not be allowed to use STEALTH technology. It goes both ways.

NATO regularly attacks military and non-military people who are not on the battlefield. Most of its bombs fall on non-battlefield targets. Case in point. You just completely contradicted your previous point. Afghanistan and its people never attacked the US. All the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia and Egypt. I agree that AQ, Bin Laden should have been taken out by a series of diplomatic maneuvers and with special forces, but the Afghan war was unnecessary and counterproductive imo. You can get a Quisling government to ask anything you want it to ask. The Karzai regime is ultra corrupt, is held together by paying off warlords, and for a time was not even democratically elected. I will give you guys credit where credit is due. I met an Afghani refugee once who said that they like the Canadian soldiers, because they help the people as you said, unlike the Americans which he said are dangerous and just go around shooting people. However not every Afghani is going to see things the same way. When a people are invaded a signficant portion of them are likely to fight back, and that was Bin Laden's trap of luring the west into Afghanistan in a conflict that could only be damaging to it in the long term. Don't get me wrong, I'm certainly not calling the Taliban angels, and am well aware of their heinous human rights abuses, but the victims of the Taliban are certainly not the only victims in this conflict. In fact the greatest refugee exodus, perhaps up to two million followed the NATO attack on Afghanistan, thousands have died in the conflict on all sides, and the country is still torn apart, and fractured. "Before you judge me and other soldiers perhaps you should do alittle research.....goggle is a wonderful thing" Forget google, I've read excellent books on the history of Afghanistan, and seen excellent documentaries. If you haven't read it, I'd recommend the book "The Great Game," by Peter Hopkirk, and also the 2 part series called "The Great Game" by Rory Stewart (former governor of Southern Iraq), which you can watch on youtube. Another excellent book I read on Afghanistan was called The punishment of virtue by Sarah Chayes.

No that's not what I"m saying, I'm saying that those responsible or taking part in war are legitimate targets in war.