Army Guy Posted June 6, 2013 Report Posted June 6, 2013 Like i said before it's easy for others to judge when they sit in their homes in a nation like ours , were we have everything a man could want....living by our morals and values....everything is perfect....But when you are submerged in combat you become that monster, or you don't survive....you do what it takes to get back to your loved ones, we train constantly to become soldiers, on paper targets, electronic sensors that tell you if you scored a hit....but live combat is different and it changes everyone exposed to it....you can call it arrogance all you want, but until you've experienced it you will never understand it regardless of how many books you've read.... Your right i'm not the first soldier, or the last to experience war up close and personal, but it was me that decided to answer the call of our Nation. It was Canadian soldiers that answered our government request to carry out what needed to be done which was to bring the taliban and terrorists regimes to it's knees, remove them from power....WHY did we do that ....well over 3000 inocent lives were lost that day in 9/11 during a terrorist attack....That sir is an act of war, and had to be answered for.... The taliban did not hand over Bin Ladin or dismantle his organization that planed and carried out this attack did they ? ....and why would they, shit Bin Ladin's merry band was incorporated into their military system.....still busy fighting the northern alliance..... ISI did not invent the taliban, it came to be just after the russian departure under Ahmed Shah Massoud, the taliban was well establish before the ISI began its funding, and training....Google is a wonderful thing.... When the US lead coalition landed that day to start military operations they did not go in with the mandate to kill just 3000 to even the score they went in to Capture bin Ladin destroy his terrorist organization, and as a bonus ,remove the taliban and the rest of the terrorist organizations within that country. And in doing so Yes Refugees became a problem, but you also forgot to mention the great effort that the Coalition went to to feed them, house them provide medical support.....and yes tens of thousands have died....80 % of those by the taliban and terrorists orgs own hands... You see you forget there is two sides to every story...not just those poor terrorists......Out gunned, out manned...but lets not forget who they are and what they stand for.... Russia did not build anything up in Afghanistan.....they wanted it to have more influence in the region to counter US influence in Pakistan.....and when they could not get there way they took the country by force and exicuted those in power in a military coup, and installing a new regime.... http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/asia/july-dec06/soviet_10-10.html. US coalition went in to destroy the regimes responaable for 9/11, and in doing so they new they had to assist in rebuilding a nation that would be a responsable one....and not sponsor every terrorist organization in the world.... Here we go again, why is it that Afghan has it's own form of democracy....not even close to what we in the west have....can you explain that one.... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
cybercoma Posted June 6, 2013 Report Posted June 6, 2013 When Islamists kill innocent people it's barbaric, when drones kill innocent civilians it's honourable. Quote
GostHacked Posted June 6, 2013 Report Posted June 6, 2013 If there are any doubts about the effetiveness of the drone strikes, even the CIA admits that they have no f'n clue who they are shooting at. http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/05/23/obama-us-security-speech-drones-guantanamo.html U.S. President Barack Obama defended America’s controversial drone attacks as legal, effective and a necessary linchpin in an evolving U.S. counterterrorism policy. But he acknowledged the targeted strikes are no “cure-all” and said he is haunted by the civilians unintentionally killed. http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/25/world/asia/pakistan-us-drone-strikes The study by Stanford Law School and New York University's School of Law calls for a re-evaluation of the practice, saying the number of "high-level" targets killed as a percentage of total casualties is extremely low -- about 2%. The report accuses Washington of misrepresenting drone strikes as "a surgically precise and effective tool that makes the U.S. safer," saying that in reality, "there is significant evidence that U.S. drone strikes have injured and killed civilians." It also casts doubts on Washington's claims that drone strikes produce zero to few civilian casualties and alleges that the United States makes "efforts to shield the drone program from democratic accountability." http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/05/18781930-exclusive-cia-didnt-always-know-who-it-was-killing-in-drone-strikes-classified-documents-show?lite The CIA did not always know who it was targeting and killing in drone strikes in Pakistan over a 14-month period, an NBC News review of classified intelligence reports shows. About one of every four of those killed by drones in Pakistan between Sept. 3, 2010, and Oct. 30, 2011, were classified as "other militants,” the documents detail. The “other militants” label was used when the CIA could not determine the affiliation of those killed, prompting questions about how the agency could conclude they were a threat to U.S. national security. Quote
eyeball Posted June 6, 2013 Report Posted June 6, 2013 ...well over 3000 inocent lives were lost that day in 9/11 during a terrorist attack....That sir is an act of war, and had to be answered for... 9/11 was also an answer. I know you'll question that but so be it. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Army Guy Posted June 6, 2013 Report Posted June 6, 2013 When Islamists kill innocent people it's barbaric, when drones kill innocent civilians it's honourable. Can you Show me one drone strike that was intentional launched to kill inocent civilians.....I have hundrds of examples of attacks that extremist directly attacked their own people to make a policitcal statement..... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Army Guy Posted June 6, 2013 Report Posted June 6, 2013 If there are any doubts about the effetiveness of the drone strikes, even the CIA admits that they have no f'n clue who they are shooting at. http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/05/23/obama-us-security-speech-drones-guantanamo.html http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/25/world/asia/pakistan-us-drone-strikes http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/05/18781930-exclusive-cia-didnt-always-know-who-it-was-killing-in-drone-strikes-classified-documents-show?lite Gost the CIA operated the aircraft, they may have not known the target for security reasons, but i can assure you this the drone operators can read the tag on your underwear, in a over cast day.....they can deliver a hell fire missle onto a lonnie size target.... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
GostHacked Posted June 6, 2013 Report Posted June 6, 2013 Can you Show me one drone strike that was intentional launched to kill inocent civilians.....I have hundrds of examples of attacks that extremist directly attacked their own people to make a policitcal statement..... Regardless of that notion being put forth, I seriously think that they just don't care and it's the cost of doing this kind of business. They may not deliberately target civilians, but no one in government is shedding tears over those killed and classified as 'collateral damage'. Quote
Army Guy Posted June 6, 2013 Report Posted June 6, 2013 9/11 was also an answer. I know you'll question that but so be it. Sure it was i mean Bin Ladin was pissed at the US, for interference into middle eastern problems, but what had the US done to Bin Ladin to warrent such an attack....It was a terrorist attack plain and simple.....but by that logic i can round up a bunch of lunatics and launch attacks again'st muslims if i wanted to ......just because ... would that be right....would someone on some forum be defending my cause...come on....thats the best you got.... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Army Guy Posted June 6, 2013 Report Posted June 6, 2013 Regardless of that notion being put forth, I seriously think that they just don't care and it's the cost of doing this kind of business. They may not deliberately target civilians, but no one in government is shedding tears over those killed and classified as 'collateral damage'. The decision to use a drone attack is done at the highest level of Government....Is that what you want a few tears....they appoligize, they offer compinsation, but really what can you do for these people once they've killed a family member , what can you say or do to make that pain go away....nothing ........and yet the war goes on......as cold as it may sound it is what happens in war, inocent people make up the bulk of the deaths in war.... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
g_bambino Posted June 6, 2013 Report Posted June 6, 2013 When Islamists kill innocent people it's barbaric, when drones kill innocent civilians it's honourable. It all depends on context, doesn't it? The innocents killed in drone strikes tend to be the shields behind which the targeted enemy has hunkered down and are unfortunately killed in the process of achieving the actual goal of neutralising the armed and violent enemy. The innocents killed by fanatics of any kind tend to be shields for noone and the killing of them is specifically a vehicle through which the killer or killers wish to disseminate a message. Trying to imply hypocricy requires ignoring all the detail. Quote
GostHacked Posted June 6, 2013 Report Posted June 6, 2013 The decision to use a drone attack is done at the highest level of Government....Is that what you want a few tears....they appoligize, they offer compinsation, but really what can you do for these people once they've killed a family member , what can you say or do to make that pain go away....nothing ........and yet the war goes on......as cold as it may sound it is what happens in war, inocent people make up the bulk of the deaths in war.... One thing can be done, stop the drone strikes. As we know the effectiveness of this program is no where near what the officials were telling us about the program. Now even the CIA admits that the strikes are not getting the targets they want and in many cases, they are not even sure that they are firing on the correct target. That's not just collateral damage....... Quote
G Huxley Posted June 6, 2013 Report Posted June 6, 2013 g bambino so protecting civilians from terrorists by killing civilians. Makes sense doesn't it? No it doesn't. Quote
G Huxley Posted June 6, 2013 Report Posted June 6, 2013 (edited) Can you Show me one drone strike that was intentional launched to kill inocent civilians.....I have hundrds of examples of attacks that extremist directly attacked their own people to make a policitcal statement..... Every attack on a funeral. That is a knowing attack on civillians. Yes there might be one or two potential terrorists there, but those comitting the attack know full well they are targeting civilians. Edited June 6, 2013 by G Huxley Quote
g_bambino Posted June 6, 2013 Report Posted June 6, 2013 g bambino so protecting civilians from terrorists by killing civilians. Makes sense doesn't it? No it doesn't. That wasn't the subject of the discussion. Quote
G Huxley Posted June 6, 2013 Report Posted June 6, 2013 But when you are submerged in combat you become that monster, or you don't survive....you do what it takes to get back to your loved ones, we train constantly to become soldiers, on paper targets, electronic sensors that tell you if you scored a hit....but live combat is different and it changes everyone exposed to it....you can call it arrogance all you want, but until you've experienced it you will never understand it regardless of how many books you've read.... That's the whole point. It should not be the goal to send a bunch of people into a meat grinder to turn into monsters. Your right i'm not the first soldier, or the last to experience war up close and personal, but it was me that decided to answer the call of our Nation. It was Canadian soldiers that answered our government request to carry out what needed to be done which was to bring the taliban and terrorists regimes to it's knees, remove them from power....WHY did we do that ....well over 3000 inocent lives were lost that day in 9/11 during a terrorist attack....That sir is an act of war, and had to be answered for.... The taliban did not hand over Bin Ladin or dismantle his organization that planed and carried out this attack did they ? ....and why would they, shit Bin Ladin's merry band was incorporated into their military system.....still busy fighting the northern alliance..... Again just because an attack was made doesn't mean it has to be answered in a thoughtless and ill planned manner. The invasion of Afghanistan (as opposed to the special ops raid that killed Obama) has caused the largest civilian refugee exodus in the history of the world, and has led to the deaths of 10s of thousands of people. Just by mathematics the numbers don't make any sense, and that was Osama's plan to lure NATO into Afghanistan into a war it couldn't win like the Soviets did with supply lines stretching around the entire world, and costing billions upon billions. ISI did not invent the taliban, it came to be just after the russian departure under Ahmed Shah Massoud, the taliban was well establish before the ISI began its funding, and training....Google is a wonderful thing.... Forget wikipedia. Actually read some books on this. The word Taliban literally means 'the students,' in Arabic from the word Talib 'student.' The US government backed the dictator of Pakistan general Ali Zia, as he was a bulwark so they thought against the Soviets in Pakistan, as the Mujahedeen were in Afghanistan. General Zia was an Islamist, and promoted extreme Islamism domestically and abroad. While Zia was receiving millions upon millions in US aid he was building up training for Islamic extremists both to try to gain control of Kashmir, and to gain control over Afghanistan. The focal point for this movement was the Pakistani universities. The Islamist student organizations received millions of dollars that he'd received through US aid, hence the rise of the 'taliban,' 'the students.' These radical Islamists actually attacked the US embassy in the fallout of the Iran embassy crisis and were a hairs breath from killing everyone inside. During the fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan, ISI largely with US funding and cooperation with US intelligence armed and financed Islamic Fundamentalists to drive out the Soviets, but rather than simply do this, ISI was trying to consolidate its own power and influence over Pakistan, this made them militantly opposed to Masoud in the Panjshir and for years they blocked the CIA from doing much business with him. When the Soviets pulled out eventually Masoud and other warlords went into Kabul, but then they turned against each other and decimated each other in civil war. Taking advantage of the vaccuum and chaos the ISI sent the 'Taliban,' 'the students,' in to turn Afghanistan into a Pakistan friendly Islamic fundamentalist state, which would secure Pakistan's flank and help it in the battle of Kashmir. When the US lead coalition landed that day to start military operations they did not go in with the mandate to kill just 3000 to even the score they went in to Capture bin Ladin destroy his terrorist organization, and as a bonus ,remove the taliban and the rest of the terrorist organizations within that country. And in doing so Yes Refugees became a problem, but you also forgot to mention the great effort that the Coalition went to to feed them, house them provide medical support.....and yes tens of thousands have died....80 % of those by the taliban and terrorists orgs own hands... You see you forget there is two sides to every story...not just those poor terrorists......Out gunned, out manned...but lets not forget who they are and what they stand for.... That's the point when you destabilize a country through war and turn it into chaos you create a massive humanitarian disaster, and that's why this war was a mistake, similar to but not as much a mistake as Iraq was. Russia did not build anything up in Afghanistan.....they wanted it to have more influence in the region to counter US influence in Pakistan.....and when they could not get there way they took the country by force and exicuted those in power in a military coup, and installing a new regime.... This is simply not true. Russia tried to totally modernize Afghanistan. Trying to turn it into an atheist secular industrial workers state via its puppet government and through Soviet Aid. When the locals fought back, only after years later did the Soviets finally invade with the military. US coalition went in to destroy the regimes responaable for 9/11, and in doing so they new they had to assist in rebuilding a nation that would be a responsable one....and not sponsor every terrorist organization in the world.... The US created and Massively funded the Pan Islamic terrorist extremism against the Soviets which eventually led 9/11. The US only had a problem with Islamic terrorism when the guns were turned on the US. Here we go again, why is it that Afghan has it's own form of democracy....not even close to what we in the west have....can you explain that one.... Its not a democracy if the person doesn't get elected and stays in power as Karzai did a few years back. Karzai is an ultra corrupt figurehead backed by US, and Iranian funding. He is the mayor of Kabul. Karzai stays in power by maintaining a rough balance between keeping Pakistan, the US, Iran, and the warlords of Afghanistan/heroin lords including his brother happy. That's not democracy. Quote
cybercoma Posted June 6, 2013 Report Posted June 6, 2013 If the cops shoot hostages, do we blame the hostage takers? Quote
Guest Peeves Posted June 6, 2013 Report Posted June 6, 2013 (edited) No more barbaric than the hundreds of thousands of people killed in the Islamic world by imperial intervention. Ridiculous response. Let's examine. OVER THE CENTURIES AND IN CONTEMPORARY TIMES. Hundreds of thousands in the Islamic world are and have been killed by the followers of Islam in the Islamic world none more than Muslims of differing sects. Sunni kill Shiia, both kill Christians, Bahai, Sikh.(look at Ecypt record this year) That's continuing NOW. In the Islamic world Syrians are murdering Syrians, have murdered Lebanese, In the Islamic world in the 'Arab Spring" (nothing to do withe western imperialism or 'the Jews') Arabs have been slaughtering each other. The Islamic world invaded many countries, THAT is IMPERIALISM. Recently Iraq invaded Iran and Quwait , in the Islamic world. Saadam was killing his people, the Kurds in the Islamic world! With poison gas! Assad IS killing Muslims in the Islamic world. No it didn't start on 9/11 except for apologists and revisionists, it started with Mohammed in the Islamic world and the Islamic worlds expansionist agenda. Look it up. That by the way was long before there was a USA. Edited June 6, 2013 by Peeves Quote
g_bambino Posted June 7, 2013 Report Posted June 7, 2013 If the cops shoot hostages, do we blame the hostage takers? Yes.... The hostages wouldn't've been shot at all had they not been made hostages by the hostage takers in the first place. Quote
cybercoma Posted June 7, 2013 Report Posted June 7, 2013 Yes.... The hostages wouldn't've been shot at all had they not been made hostages by the hostage takers in the first place. Then why don't more cops indiscriminately shoot hostages? It's the hostage takers' faults after all. Quote
Army Guy Posted June 7, 2013 Report Posted June 7, 2013 That's the whole point. It should not be the goal to send a bunch of people into a meat grinder to turn into monsters. Again just because an attack was made doesn't mean it has to be answered in a thoughtless and ill planned manner. The invasion of Afghanistan (as opposed to the special ops raid that killed Obama) has caused the largest civilian refugee exodus in the history of the world, and has led to the deaths of 10s of thousands of people. Just by mathematics the numbers don't make any sense, and that was Osama's plan to lure NATO into Afghanistan into a war it couldn't win like the Soviets did with supply lines stretching around the entire world, and costing billions upon billions. Forget wikipedia. Actually read some books on this. The word Taliban literally means 'the students,' in Arabic from the word Talib 'student.' The US government backed the dictator of Pakistan general Ali Zia, as he was a bulwark so they thought against the Soviets in Pakistan, as the Mujahedeen were in Afghanistan. General Zia was an Islamist, and promoted extreme Islamism domestically and abroad. While Zia was receiving millions upon millions in US aid he was building up training for Islamic extremists both to try to gain control of Kashmir, and to gain control over Afghanistan. The focal point for this movement was the Pakistani universities. The Islamist student organizations received millions of dollars that he'd received through US aid, hence the rise of the 'taliban,' 'the students.' These radical Islamists actually attacked the US embassy in the fallout of the Iran embassy crisis and were a hairs breath from killing everyone inside. During the fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan, ISI largely with US funding and cooperation with US intelligence armed and financed Islamic Fundamentalists to drive out the Soviets, but rather than simply do this, ISI was trying to consolidate its own power and influence over Pakistan, this made them militantly opposed to Masoud in the Panjshir and for years they blocked the CIA from doing much business with him. When the Soviets pulled out eventually Masoud and other warlords went into Kabul, but then they turned against each other and decimated each other in civil war. Taking advantage of the vaccuum and chaos the ISI sent the 'Taliban,' 'the students,' in to turn Afghanistan into a Pakistan friendly Islamic fundamentalist state, which would secure Pakistan's flank and help it in the battle of Kashmir. That's the point when you destabilize a country through war and turn it into chaos you create a massive humanitarian disaster, and that's why this war was a mistake, similar to but not as much a mistake as Iraq was. This is simply not true. Russia tried to totally modernize Afghanistan. Trying to turn it into an atheist secular industrial workers state via its puppet government and through Soviet Aid. When the locals fought back, only after years later did the Soviets finally invade with the military. The US created and Massively funded the Pan Islamic terrorist extremism against the Soviets which eventually led 9/11. The US only had a problem with Islamic terrorism when the guns were turned on the US. Its not a democracy if the person doesn't get elected and stays in power as Karzai did a few years back. Karzai is an ultra corrupt figurehead backed by US, and Iranian funding. He is the mayor of Kabul. Karzai stays in power by maintaining a rough balance between keeping Pakistan, the US, Iran, and the warlords of Afghanistan/heroin lords including his brother happy. That's not democracy. 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. 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. The numbers don't have to make sense, it is the result of Osama's actions....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, and remove the taliban from power....regardless of cost... 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....But he must of also known that this act would claim the lives of his little force and many innocent civilians.....It is in my opinion that he did not care what it cost Afghanistan or his muslim brothers, 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..... As for the orgins of the taliban , like i said before they were already est, well before the ISI got ahold of them. http://middleeast.about.com/od/afghanistan/ss/me080914a_3.htm Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Army Guy Posted June 7, 2013 Report Posted June 7, 2013 Then why don't more cops indiscriminately shoot hostages? It's the hostage takers' faults after all. Are you kidding me.....Cops are held responsable for every life they take, but so is the hostage taker. But then again they are not at war are they.... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
cybercoma Posted June 7, 2013 Report Posted June 7, 2013 You're suggesting when you're at war that you're not responsible for innocent lives lost. Does that apply to the "terrorists" too? Quote
Army Guy Posted June 7, 2013 Report Posted June 7, 2013 (edited) You're suggesting when you're at war that you're not responsible for innocent lives lost. Does that apply to the "terrorists" too? You are responsable to follow the rules of law govnerning war, deliberate targeting of civilians is again'st those laws, however, if they are mixed then all measures should be taken to limit civilian cas....Take a look at D Day, towns and villages in France that housed enemy units were bombed and shelled did it kill innocent french civilians hell ya by the hundrds....was it illigal no.....War and peace time are different and should not be compared....also military and police rules of engagement are very different.... is not what i'm saying genva convention state that all measures should be taken to limit civilian cas.....it does not state that it is illigal, but rather limit..... And yes it applies to terrorist as well if they are going after military targets.....but that type of attack does not get the same attention, or have the same policitical message as blowing up a market full of strickly civilians....which is the key difference here....Terrorist are just targeting civilians ....NATO is attacking a military target , that has civilians around it.....I did not right the law .....that was done by our governments.... Edited June 7, 2013 by Army Guy Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
GostHacked Posted June 7, 2013 Report Posted June 7, 2013 In the Islamic world Syrians are murdering Syrians, have murdered Lebanese, In the Islamic world in the 'Arab Spring" (nothing to do withe western imperialism or 'the Jews') Arabs have been slaughtering each other. The FSA is getting some support from the west. The FSA is getting much help from a NATO ally that is Turkey. The FSA operated out of Turkey. The Islamic world invaded many countries, THAT is IMPERIALISM. Recently Iraq invaded Iran and Quwait , in the Islamic world. Imperialism? Iraq did not invade Iran. Saadam was killing his people, the Kurds in the Islamic world! With poison gas! Assad IS killing Muslims in the Islamic world. Many of these rebels are not even from Syria. Quote
GostHacked Posted June 7, 2013 Report Posted June 7, 2013 You are responsable to follow the rules of law govnerning war, deliberate targeting of civilians is again'st those laws, however, if they are mixed then all measures should be taken to limit civilian cas....Take a look at D Day, towns and villages in France that housed enemy units were bombed and shelled did it kill innocent french civilians hell ya by the hundrds....was it illigal no.....War and peace time are different and should not be compared....also military and police rules of engagement are very different.... is not what i'm saying genva convention state that all measures should be taken to limit civilian cas.....it does not state that it is illigal, but rather limit..... And yes it applies to terrorist as well if they are going after military targets.....but that type of attack does not get the same attention, or have the same policitical message as blowing up a market full of strickly civilians....which is the key difference here....Terrorist are just targeting civilians ....NATO is attacking a military target , that has civilians around it.....I did not right the law .....that was done by our governments.... 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. Quote
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.