Barbaric attack in the U.K.

[Army Guy]

Terrorists are not military. The Muhajedeen were not military. Al-Queda is not military. They are militaristic in nature, but they are not military. Militia would be a better fitting term.

Terroroist are defined by their actions....once you comit a terrorist act then your a terrorist for life....What i was infering to was not all attacks carried out by the taliban were terrorist in nature , that is those carried out on the military....

[GostHacked]

Terroroist are defined by their actions....once you comit a terrorist act then your a terrorist for life....What i was infering to was not all attacks carried out by the taliban were terrorist in nature , that is those carried out on the military....

I was simply making a distinction that these specific terrorists are not military. You classified them as military targets, but the target is not military, I would use militia instead if the terrorist label cannot be applied.

Also I will be a slight ass and say that much of your spelling is horrible.

[G Huxley]

Peeves:

Where did Saddam get his nerve gas? From the USA, France and Germany as they backed Saddam's campaign of murder against his neighbours. Iraq was 100% invented by Western Imperialism and in its design screwed the Kurds so that the West could keep oil flowing to its imperial war machine.

Who is the most reviled person in Iraqi Kurdistan next to Saddam:

A: Henry Kissinger

[G Huxley]

It is not the goal but the side effect, asking someone to legally kill another human being, changes a man or women inside to the piont they are not the same person. It is this side effect that we as a nation are trying to deal with now. But has no impact in the decission about going to war.

Agreed, but this should be top in mind in any decision to go to war.

The Invasion of Afghanistan was planned in detailed, and when you invade another country, that is what happens it creates a human wave of refugees and people die....And while it did create a alot of refugees it was by far the largest ever seen by man.....sorry history says over wise

Another reason why the war was unwise.

The numbers don't have to make sense, it is the result of Osama's actions....

Who was not Afghani, nor were any of the attackers on 9/11. So why do the Afghanis have to suffer? Osama's plan was to lure NATO into a deadly war in Afghanistan. He succeeded in doing so by the invasion/occupation playing perfectly into his hands, while he made a beeline for neighbouring Pakistan.

like i said before there is no score board, just objectives to be achieved, one of those objectives was to capture Osama destroy his merry band of thugs,

As events have shown the capture of Osama didn't require an invasion, merely the skilled use of special forces. The invasion of Afghanistan did not capture Bin Laden. He escaped during the invasion to neighbouring Pakistan.

and remove the taliban from power....regardless of cost...

And with such little regard for the actual Afghans into the equation and the cost itself which was Bin Laden's plan for NATO to greatly overspend, it is no wonder the invasion both spent way too much filling Osama's goals, and greatly cost the people of Afghanistan.

Of course if you looked at it they way you do, Osama intention was to draw US military into a fight in afghanistan was flawed when it came down to mathimatics did it not....

According to mathematics it worked perfectly.

But he must of also known that this act would claim the lives of his little force and many innocent civilians.....

Yes, but then why play into his hands?

It is in my opinion that he did not care what it cost Afghanistan or his muslim brothers.

And neither does NATO. So how come Osama and NATO have the same attitude?

he wanted to become famous as the ONE that struck back at the US.....He got his wish....and everything he built has been destroyed his body dumped at sea.....and the only virgins he's got are swimming with the fishes.....

He was caught by a team of special forces, not even in Afghanistan.

So the Afghanistan mission didn't even achieve that goal. It costed the Afghanis a priceless tragedy, and it left the US in the doldrums financially with a crippling debt it may never recover from borrowed from China, which appears to be heading in the direction of eclipsing it as world superpower.

As for the orgins of the taliban , like i said before they were already est, well before the ISI got ahold of them.

The Taliban Islamic fundamentalist 'students' originated with the madrases founded by General Ali Zia dictator of Pakistan who was also the head of the ISI as head of the military, which rules over ISI. So no the Taliban was always in the hands of the ISI.

[Argus]

Only westerners have the arrogance that they consider it shocking that soldier gets attacked after declaring war on and attacking several countries.

A soldier (especially one who served in Afghanistan) is actually a legitimate target in war believe it or not.

You're leaving out that he wasn't attacked and killed by the enemy. He was attacked and killed by fellow citizens.

Or are you saying all Muslims are the enemy? Because if that's so they should be expelled from western nations.

Edited June 8, 2013 by Argus

[Argus]

When Islamists kill innocent people it's barbaric, when drones kill innocent civilians it's honourable.

Drones don't TARGET innocent people. Islamists do.

[Argus]

If the cops shoot hostages, do we blame the hostage takers?

Yes. Unless you're suggesting the cops deliberately shot the hostages...

[Argus]

You're suggesting when you're at war that you're not responsible for innocent lives lost. Does that apply to the "terrorists" too?

War is a dangerous, messy, and often confusing business. That's what the term 'friendly fire' means. The military sometimes kills its own people and allies by accident. They do their best to avoid that, not simply for ethical and moral purposes but simply because it's damaging to your own cause. But it happens. Fighting a guerrilla war is always damaging to civilians. In this case principally because the enemy doesn't care about civilian casualties, and its tool of choice is high explosives.

But there is an order of magnitude difference in culpability between a legitimate act against an enemy which accidentally or incidentally harms civilians, and deliberately targets civilians for no other purpose but to sow terror.

[GostHacked]

Drones don't TARGET innocent people. Islamists do.

The CIA has admitted that in many of these drone strikes are not effective as the really have no clue who they are firing on. They do target innocents because they have no clue who they are firing on. Screw it pop off a couple more missiles just to be on the safe side.

[Peter F]

Imperialism? Iraq did not invade Iran.

Point of order: Iraq did indeed invade Iran see Iran-Iraq war

22 September 1980 to 20 August 1988. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Iraq_War

[G Huxley]

You're leaving out that he wasn't attacked and killed by the enemy. He was attacked and killed by fellow citizens.

Or are you saying all Muslims are the enemy? Because if that's so they should be expelled from western nations.

NATO used Afghani citizens to fight Afghani citizens, that's how they conquered the Taliban why might it not work in reverse?

[Argus]

NATO used Afghani citizens to fight Afghani citizens, that's how they conquered the Taliban why might it not work in reverse?

The Afghanis who fought the Taliban did so within the overall context of an ongoing civil war against a brutal theocratic government which shot its way to power and held it by force of arms. What you seem to be suggesting is that Muslims within the UK are, in fact, part of a foreign group affiliated and showing allegiance to Muslims in the middle east, and so are legitimately outraged and justified in taking up arms against British people, even though they live in a democratic nation with full freedoms for all.

[eyeball]

Drones don't TARGET innocent people. Islamists do.

What if they're guilty of voting for imperialist governments?

Maybe if voters wore uniforms they could tell us apart.

[G Huxley]

Argus interestingly the UK is not secular eg. it has a National Church, the Church of England. If a government abuses its powers, and engages in wars, it is likely that some of its citizens will turn against the government, and its forces as happened to the Taliban and in the UK.

Afghanistan is not the only country the UK has attacked either in the Middle East. Iraq, Libya, active sanctions against Iran, funnelling arms to the Syrian Civil War (Syrians against Syrians) etc.

Edited June 8, 2013 by G Huxley

[Guest American Woman]

What if they're guilty of voting for imperialist governments?

Maybe if voters wore uniforms they could tell us apart.

Yeah, because they care. I'm sure they thought that 5 year old girl on the plane on her way to Disney World on 9-11 had voted for Bush.

In case you haven't noticed, they commit violence against their own kind if they don't follow their beliefs. That's been pointed out countless times now. Again. They don't care who you voted for.

Edited June 9, 2013 by American Woman

[G Huxley]

Yeah, because they care. I'm sure they thought that 5 year old girl on the plane on her way to Disney World on 9-11 had voted for Bush.

Or the 5 year old at the funeral who gets hit by a US drone strike.

[Guest American Woman]

Or the 5 year old at the funeral who gets hit by a US drone strike.

Yeah, right, because that has so much to do with the comment I was responding to and my response.

[G Huxley]

It was 100% topical. Its called hypocrisy 101 or the pot calling the kettle black.

[Guest American Woman]

It was 100% topical.

It had absolutely nothing to do with the comment I was responding to - or my response. It's called not being able to respond to what's said, ie: not being able to engage in discussion, but rather just repeating one's agenda over and over. We've got enough of that already. Not interested. Not going there. Try responding to what's actually said.

Its called hypocrisy 101 or the pot calling the kettle black.

That comment's called ignorance.

Edited June 9, 2013 by American Woman

[G Huxley]

It was a 100% topical response to what you said.

Get over it.

[Guest American Woman]

It was a 100% topical response to what you said.

Get over it.

It had absolutely nothing to do with what I said.

Reading Comprehension 101. Try it.

[G Huxley]

Complaint: Terrorists attack planes with 5 year olds aboard.

Complaint: US air attacks target funerals with 5 year olds in attendance.

[Guest American Woman]

Complaint: Terrorists attack planes with 5 year olds aboard.

Complaint: US air attacks target funerals with 5 year olds in attendance.

Seriously. Try reading the post I was responding to for a clue as to what I was saying.

[Michael Hardner]

Let's get back to the discussion here...

[Argus]

What if they're guilty of voting for imperialist governments?

Maybe if voters wore uniforms they could tell us apart.

If you're going to suggest all citizens are guilty, and thus fair targets to those angry at the actions of their government, then you'll have to abide by the reverse and consider all Muslims fair targets for attack due to the actions of the Islamists.